# No, Christianity Should Not ‘Welcome’ or ‘Include’ Your Sinf



## GURPS

*No, Christianity Should Not ‘Welcome’ or ‘Include’ Your Sinful Lifestyle*


I got this email a few days ago insisting Christians need to be more “inclusive” of open homosexuals. It’s a popular notion these days, so I thought I’d share this with you and respond here publicly:

_Matt, you put yourself on a pedestal as this “great Christian” but you do more harm to the religion than anyone else. As a gay man I can say I’m happy to see how finally a lot of Christians and different churches are realizing that Christianity has to be INCLUSIVE of the LGBTQ community and other lifestyles. Not judging of them. Gays and trans people have felt alienated by Christianity and now progressive Christians have finally started to pull the religion into the 21st century and reach out to all of us. Jesus preached tolerance for all people and lifestyles not HATE. The prodigal son was WELCOMED back not told to go away! You are still trying to make divisions and tell some of us Christians we are not Christians just because we live differently. You are a truly sh*tty person and you come off as a bad writer and an uneducated idiot. Just stop talking. You make Jesus mad every time you write your garbage.

-A gay man who loves Jesus_​
[clip]

Second, I have never referred to myself as a “great Christian” — or a “great” anything for that matter — so I’m not sure why you put “great Christian” in quotes. I consider myself a greatly flawed Christian, even a “sh*tty” one, as you so helpfully and compassionately noted.

See, you need to stop reading with your emotions and read with your brain, man. Your emotions tell you that anyone who advocates virtue is automatically claiming to be virtuous, because it’s easier to dismiss a point based on the perceived motivations behind it rather than consider the point on its own merits. It’s like I’m saying two plus two equals four, and you’re countering that I’m not such a brilliant mathematician. Well, right, but I never said I was a brilliant mathematician. I just said two plus two equals four, because it does, and because even a stupid man can see that.

It’s difficult to have grown-up conversations these days, because people like yourself see every mention of moral truth as either a personal attack or a statement of superiority. This is the real damage you cause in the Faith. It’s not that you’re sinful — we all are, to be sure — it’s that you want to be coddled. You want to shut down professions of Truth that are inconvenient or uncomfortable. You want to modify Christian teachings not because you tried them and found them wrong, but because, to paraphrase Chesterton, you found them difficult and don’t want to try them.

I have many sins, but I will not tell you they are not sins. I come to Christ a sick and broken man looking for healing. You apparently come a sick and broken man looking to be assured you were never sick and broken to begin with. That is the only real difference between us. Or I should say, it’s the only real difference between Christians and “progressive Christians.” Both groups are sinful, both groups are weak, both groups need Christ desperately, but one wants — though they may so often fail — to go Christ’s way, and the other wants Christ to go theirs.


----------



## b23hqb

GURPS said:


> No, Christianity Should Not ‘Welcome’ or ‘Include’ Your Sinful Lifestyle
> 
> 
> I got this email a few days ago insisting Christians need to be more “inclusive” of open homosexuals. It’s a popular notion these days, so I thought I’d share this with you and respond here publicly:
> 
> _Matt, you put yourself on a pedestal as this “great Christian” but you do more harm to the religion than anyone else. As a gay man I can say I’m happy to see how finally a lot of Christians and different churches are realizing that Christianity has to be INCLUSIVE of the LGBTQ community and other lifestyles. Not judging of them. Gays and trans people have felt alienated by Christianity and now progressive Christians have finally started to pull the religion into the 21st century and reach out to all of us. Jesus preached tolerance for all people and lifestyles not HATE. The prodigal son was WELCOMED back not told to go away! You are still trying to make divisions and tell some of us Christians we are not Christians just because we live differently. You are a truly sh*tty person and you come off as a bad writer and an uneducated idiot. Just stop talking. You make Jesus mad every time you write your garbage.
> 
> -A gay man who loves Jesus_​
> [clip]
> 
> Second, I have never referred to myself as a “great Christian” — or a “great” anything for that matter — so I’m not sure why you put “great Christian” in quotes. I consider myself a greatly flawed Christian, even a “sh*tty” one, as you so helpfully and compassionately noted.
> 
> See, you need to stop reading with your emotions and read with your brain, man. Your emotions tell you that anyone who advocates virtue is automatically claiming to be virtuous, because it’s easier to dismiss a point based on the perceived motivations behind it rather than consider the point on its own merits. It’s like I’m saying two plus two equals four, and you’re countering that I’m not such a brilliant mathematician. Well, right, but I never said I was a brilliant mathematician. I just said two plus two equals four, because it does, and because even a stupid man can see that.
> 
> It’s difficult to have grown-up conversations these days, because people like yourself see every mention of moral truth as either a personal attack or a statement of superiority. This is the real damage you cause in the Faith. It’s not that you’re sinful — we all are, to be sure — it’s that you want to be coddled. You want to shut down professions of Truth that are inconvenient or uncomfortable. You want to modify Christian teachings not because you tried them and found them wrong, but because, to paraphrase Chesterton, you found them difficult and don’t want to try them.
> 
> I have many sins, but I will not tell you they are not sins. I come to Christ a sick and broken man looking for healing. You apparently come a sick and broken man looking to be assured you were never sick and broken to begin with. That is the only real difference between us. Or I should say, it’s the only real difference between Christians and “progressive Christians.” Both groups are sinful, both groups are weak, both groups need Christ desperately, but one wants — though they may so often fail — to go Christ’s way, and the other wants Christ to go theirs.



Amen, Matt (whoever - I'm thinking maybe Matt Slick from CARM, possibly). People need to repent to gain the Lord, and not the other way around. As a saved sinner myself, I continuously need to examine myself, hold me up to God's standard, and just admit I fall short without the Lord Jesus as my advocate. 

The homosexual communi-tuh! must realize they need to change themselves, and not demand God change, or they will fail eternally.


----------



## GURPS

b23hqb said:


> The homosexual communi-tuh! must realize they need to change themselves, and not demand God change, or they will fail eternally.





When you ask for an “inclusive” Christianity, you ask for a Christianity that, rather than calling you to serve it, bends down and serves you. You’re asking to be “included” in the Faith on your own terms. That’s just not how this works, brother. As Christians, we have no authority to “include” you in that way. You must include yourself.

We go out into the world and proclaim the Gospel. We offer an invitation. We extend a greeting. We fight to win souls. But the souls must come of their own accord and must accept the Truth of Christ willingly and in its fullness. You must enter into the Truth. You must be the one who accepts it. You must be the one who “includes” the Truth in your life. *Your lifestyle must change to accommodate the Truth, not the other way around.*


----------



## Chuckt

Gurps,

How do you suppose you reach them?
Do you want them to go to heaven?
Can you expect to reach them by having them at arm's length?
Do you ask everyone at your church if they are homosexual?  Can you really know if someone is a homosexual at your church or not?
Can someone lie and be a closet homosexual at your church or not?
Can you reach a homosexual if you are condemning or have a negative attitude towards them?
Do you want homosexuals to hear the gospel at your church?
Can homosexuals hear the gospel at your church if the church is negative?
Would the gospel be received better if you communicated it with love or hate?
Do you have any friends that are homosexuals?
If your neighbor was homosexual, are you still commanded to love them?  Who is your neighbor?
Do you think homosexuals deserve to hear the gospel?
Do you think we should have rules to who may hear the gospel?
If I was spiritually blind, how would you treat me as a heathen?  Is it my fault that I am blind?  Would you blame me?  Would you attack someone verbally who was blind?
What is your gospel?

When you give me your answers, please give me a plan on how to deal with your stated problem.

Chuck


----------



## b23hqb

All those questions are valid ones, but they as a whole in no way invalidate the OP - the Christian church cannot allow known homosexuality or any other known sin of individuals to continue among the body. The practices must be abandoned and repented of by those holding those vices.

Preach the Gospel to all, condemn no one, but we must judge based on the Bible, and react accordingly to biblical discipline in order to not infect the overall body. You of all people know that, and preach it accordingly, especially concerning catholics. 

Let me know when and where you allow open homosexuality into your meetings, condone it, and allow it to stay and continue. 

It seems harsh, but to those who openly want to flaunt God, it will be harsh.

Do you think practicing homosexuality and claiming salvation will work?


----------



## Chuckt

b23hqb said:


> Do you think practicing homosexuality and claiming salvation will work?



Sin is messy.


----------



## cheezgrits

Chuckt finally posted something that made sense. And brings up good points. How do you evaluate the church? Who is to say they can evaluate a sin or the sinner? I started as a baptist and they threw us out of the church because they rooted around in our trash and found out my Dad drank. Just socially. He was choir leader, Sunday School teacher, deacon, building committee, etc. Was a great man. 

Is drinking a sin? Hmmmmm.

Same thing with homosexuality. If you are open and flagrant and your church says it's a sin, then yep, if you want to stay in that church, better change. But are the churches going out on modern day with hunts?

Messy indeed.


----------



## PrchJrkr

Chuckt said:


> Sin is messy.



Especially homosexuality.


----------



## Amused_despair

Bacon is messy.


----------



## Chuckt

cheezgrits said:


> Same thing with homosexuality. If you are open and flagrant and your church says it's a sin, then yep, if you want to stay in that church, better change. But are the churches going out on modern day with hunts?
> 
> Messy indeed.



Do you know what George Washington did?  He examined every church member and asked them questions point by point on the Apostle's creed.  
One of the teachers that was over my house believes he was trying to root out Catholicism or the Church of England and get away from those things.

Every church is different.  Every Baptist church is independent even though they might be part of a group.


----------



## GURPS

the difference lies in, intent ....


are you still shacked up with your gf refusing to quit living in sin - :slam: you are out a here 
are you living alone, and occasionally falling to resist the temptations of the flesh, or the bottle, or stealing, or lying or swearing, or ] - come on brother lets pray for strength and forgiveness


----------



## Chuckt

GURPS said:


> the difference lies in, intent ....
> 
> 
> are you still shacked up with your gf refusing to quit living in sin - :slam: you are out a here
> are you living alone, and occasionally falling to resist the temptations of the flesh, or the bottle, or stealing, or lying or swearing, or ] - come on brother lets pray for strength and forgiveness



And what would that do?  

It sounds like the door of the closed fist.  Come on in.  We're going to judge you up and down.  Do you think it would work?


----------



## cheezgrits




----------



## b23hqb

cheezgrits said:


> View attachment 110172



Nice, but irrelevant to this topic. Too bad you left out the practicing homosexual. A coffee shop, like the workroom floor, or a football game, is not a church, doctrinal, belief situation. Don't try and be cute with God.


----------



## Amused_despair

"I think Jesus is happiest when we keep hate in our heart for our neighbor" said b23hqb.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

GURPS said:


> the difference lies in, intent ....
> 
> 
> are you still shacked up with your gf refusing to quit living in sin - :slam: you are out a here
> are you living alone, and occasionally falling to resist the temptations of the flesh, or the bottle, or stealing, or lying or swearing, or ] - come on brother lets pray for strength and forgiveness



Isn't being divorced and remarried the same thing?


----------



## cheezgrits

b23hqb said:


> Nice, but irrelevant to this topic. Too bad you left out the practicing homosexual. A coffee shop, like the workroom floor, or a football game, is not a church, doctrinal, belief situation. Don't try and be cute with God.



Well, at least we know who the a$$hole is now....


----------



## b23hqb

Amused_despair said:


> "I think Jesus is happiest when we keep hate in our heart for our neighbor" said b23hqb.



Where did you get anything about hate out of that? Pretty judgmental, don't you think?


----------



## cheezgrits

Amused_despair said:


> "I think Jesus is happiest when we keep hate in our heart for our neighbor" said b23hqb.



It is the way of the evangelicals. I love Jesus, cause he'll get me a heaven condo even though I sin it up here, I just has to be warshed in the blood! And they tend to not like what Jesus stood for, which was standing up for those that the rest of society looked down upon and that didn't quite fit in. You know, the love thy neighbor, do unto others stuff. unless they think different than you.


----------



## Chuckt

cheezgrits said:


> It is the way of the evangelicals. I love Jesus, cause he'll get me a heaven condo even though I sin it up here, I just has to be warshed in the blood! And they tend to not like what Jesus stood for, which was standing up for those that the rest of society looked down upon and that didn't quite fit in. You know, the love thy neighbor, do unto others stuff. unless they think different than you.



It is usually the other way around.

My neighbor was the town gossip and occasionally made up lies about the neighbors.  She was retired and because her husband was retired and had all the time to manicure her lawn, she spent her day thinking she was greater than all the other neighbors when she didn't manicure her lawn but she made sure to gossip about all the neighbors who worked and didn't have as much time to spend on their lawns.

And she thought because her husband did the lawn that she was a good person.


----------



## Chuckt

GURPS said:


> the difference lies in, intent ....
> 
> 
> are you still shacked up with your gf refusing to quit living in sin - :slam: you are out a here
> are you living alone, and occasionally falling to resist the temptations of the flesh, or the bottle, or stealing, or lying or swearing, or ] - come on brother lets pray for strength and forgiveness



Luke 7:39	 	Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.


Matthew 9:11	 	And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

Matthew 9:12	 	But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

Matthew 9:13	 	But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/21-31.htm



> For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; *but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him*; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.



The Bible says that the tax collectors and the prostitutes did believe Jesus whereas the other man did not.


You are preaching that Jesus can't forgive and that we shouldn't forgive but why should God forgive us if we don't forgive others?

Matthew 18:35	 	So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Matthew 6:15	 	But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.


----------



## littlelady

Chuckt said:


> It is usually the other way around.
> 
> My neighbor was the town gossip and occasionally made up lies about the neighbors.  She was retired and because her husband was retired and had all the time to manicure her lawn, she spent her day thinking she was greater than all the other neighbors when she didn't manicure her lawn but she made sure to gossip about all the neighbors who worked and didn't have as much time to spend on their lawns.
> 
> And she thought because her husband did the lawn that she was a good person.



Seriously?  That is your perception of how you want to think things are.  You really are a pompous arse on this forum.  If I was trying to find religion, you would have turned me off a long time ago.  What is your problem, really?  Please do share with us.  Thanks!

One more thing.  Do you find yourself different/better than your gossipy neighbor?  Just wondering.


----------



## Chuckt

littlelady said:


> Seriously?  That is your perception of how you want to think things are.  You really are a pompous arse on this forum.  If I was trying to find religion, you would have turned me off a long time ago.  What is your problem, really?  Please do share with us.  Thanks!



We have this guy at work who hates the UPS driver because he is a Christian so he would make sure he didn't get any Christmas bonuses that my boss gave out because he hates Christians.

The UPS driver didn't do anything to him but I can give you a laundry list of the things he does to other people.


If you look at your own behavior, you called me a name and I didn't call you a name so that is how I think things are.


----------



## littlelady

Chuckt said:


> We have this guy at work who hates the UPS driver because he is a Christian so he would make sure he didn't get any Christmas bonuses that my boss gave out because he hates Christians.
> 
> The UPS driver didn't do anything to him but I can give you a laundry list of the things he does to other people.
> 
> 
> If you look at your own behavior, you called me a name and I didn't call you a name so that is how I think things are.



Sorry.  You are right.  However, you do come across as a pompous arse; like my way or the highway.  Just an observation.  Discussion is a good thing.


----------



## vraiblonde

b23hqb said:


> Don't try and be cute with God.



Or what?


----------



## Chuckt

littlelady said:


> Sorry.  You are right.  However, you do come across as a pompous arse; like my way or the highway.  Just an observation.  Discussion is a good thing.



Sorry but when I started witnessing on message boards, people wanted to interfere with the message so much that I couldn't have a conversation and it is no different today.

Today I'm not a consumer asking your opinion as someone that doesn't know.  I'm a salesman that knows the truth and because I know the truth, I am only selling.  I'm not here to buy what you have.

A lot of users think I'm stupid because I'm willing to talk to them so hundreds of people I've talked to have tried to con me on what the truth is or what the interpretation is so I look it up.

I haven't done anything special except fight for basic Bible doctrine.

Conversation is where you and others want to interrupt because you don't really want to hear what God says.


----------



## b23hqb

vraiblonde said:


> Or what?



Everybody's time is gonna come, kicking or screaming, you/me/we/them/all, will face their maker and answer for everything we did, fer' or again' God. Scouts honor.


----------



## vraiblonde

b23hqb said:


> Everybody's time is gonna come, kicking or screaming, you/me/we/them/all, will face their maker and answer for everything we did, fer' or again' God. Scouts honor.



I am completely comfortable answering for "everything I did".  I suspect you might be in for some surprises, though.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> ..I couldn't have a conversation .



That's all on you, sport. We are not responsible for your obvious mental and social deficiencies.


----------



## GURPS

PeoplesElbow said:


> Isn't being divorced and remarried the same thing?




indeed .... but there is annulment 

depends on the Church 

.... IIRC Adultery was the only grounds for divorce


----------



## littlelady

Chuckt said:


> Sorry but when I started witnessing on message boards, people wanted to interfere with the message so much that I couldn't have a conversation and it is no different today.
> 
> Today I'm not a consumer asking your opinion as someone that doesn't know.  I'm a salesman that knows the truth and because I know the truth, I am only selling.  I'm not here to buy what you have.
> 
> A lot of users think I'm stupid because I'm willing to talk to them so hundreds of people I've talked to have tried to con me on what the truth is or what the interpretation is so I look it up.
> 
> I haven't done anything special except fight for basic Bible doctrine.
> 
> Conversation is where you and others want to interrupt because you don't really want to hear what God says.



So, to me what you are saying is your conversations are one way only; your way.  I don't like solicitors/salesman that come calling when I didn't request it.  You are saying you have no room to learn, and that you know it all.  I have stated many times that I am not a scholar on the Bible.  However, I believe I know enough to know what I believe.  You seem to be one of those that wants to shove belief down one's throat.  It doesn't work that way.  Actually, the opposite.  I deduct that you think conversation is a waste of time; as you say, it interrupts you.  Well, if that is how you feel, then it is not necessary for you and I to have any more conversation.  Do you have actual conversations with God?  And, I am not talking about prayer.  Good luck with your conversion techniques.  I am done conversing with you.  Carry on.


----------



## Amused_despair

Chuckt said:


> Sorry but when I started witnessing on message boards, people wanted to interfere with the message so much that I couldn't have a conversation and it is no different today.
> 
> Today I'm not a consumer asking your opinion as someone that doesn't know.  I'm a salesman that knows the truth and because I know the truth, I am only selling.  I'm not here to buy what you have.
> 
> A lot of users think I'm stupid because I'm willing to talk to them so hundreds of people I've talked to have tried to con me on what the truth is or what the interpretation is so I look it up.
> 
> I haven't done anything special except fight for basic Bible doctrine.
> 
> Conversation is where you and others want to interrupt because you don't really want to hear what God says.



Sometimes you hear a salesman talking and realize they have no idea what they are talking about, customers find other resources and see how wrong the sales man was.  many times they realize in time to prevent them from making a bad sales decision, other times it is buyer's remorse as they find out after the sale.  Enjoy your one-sided discussions, Chuckt.


----------



## seekeroftruth

I don't care, personally, if a drunk, a thief, a homosexual, a murderer, or any other sinner is sitting beside me.... *as long as the Gospel is preached and the sinner is listening.  *

Fact is.... *we all are sinners*.....

*Jesus spent His whole life with sinners.*

When the church starts saying that there is any other way to Salvation than through Jesus Christ.... then I have a problem with the church.

I went to a meeting at a local church in Calvert County once.  The head of the church said that it was wrong to preach that Jesus Christ is the only way to Salvation.  I told that woman that she was wrong.  That *Jesus is the only way*.

She said the church has to be inclusive and invite everyone and saying that *Jesus is the only Way* stopped people from coming to church.


----------



## b23hqb

seekeroftruth said:


> I don't care, personally, if a drunk, a thief, a homosexual, a murderer, or any other sinner is sitting beside me.... *as long as the Gospel is preached and the sinner is listening.  *
> 
> Fact is.... *we all are sinners*.....
> 
> *Jesus spent His whole life with sinners
> 
> When the church starts saying that there is any other way to Salvation than through Jesus Christ.... then I have a problem with the church.
> 
> I went to a meeting at a local church in Calvert County once.  The head of the church said that it was wrong to preach that Jesus Christ is the only way to Salvation.  I told that woman that she was wrong.  That Jesus is the only way.
> 
> She said the church has to be inclusive and invite everyone and saying that Jesus is the only Way stopped people from coming to church.
> 
> *


*

Gee, that's sorta the topic of this thread in the first place. If people don't want to buy that Jesus and His teachings (which include the OT rules on morality) are the only way, then they should not be offended when they are invited to leave.*


----------



## Amused_despair

seekeroftruth said:


> I don't care, personally, if a drunk, a thief, a homosexual, a murderer, or any other sinner is sitting beside me.... *as long as the Gospel is preached and the sinner is listening.  *
> 
> Fact is.... *we all are sinners*.....
> 
> *Jesus spent His whole life with sinners.*
> 
> When the church starts saying that there is any other way to Salvation than through Jesus Christ.... then I have a problem with the church.
> 
> I went to a meeting at a local church in Calvert County once.  The head of the church said that it was wrong to preach that Jesus Christ is the only way to Salvation.  I told that woman that she was wrong.  That *Jesus is the only way*.
> 
> She said the church has to be inclusive and invite everyone and saying that *Jesus is the only Way* stopped people from coming to church.



Churches are businesses, if they don't have anyone to sell their product to, they can't pay their bills.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Amused_despair said:


> Churches are businesses



...insurance businesses.


----------



## vraiblonde

I don't know why a gay person would want to join some sanctimonious exclusionary church in the first place.  It's not like there aren't a zillion different churches to be a part of that will accept them.


----------



## b23hqb

vraiblonde said:


> I don't know why a gay person would want to join some sanctimonious exclusionary church in the first place.  It's not like there aren't a zillion different churches to be a part of that will accept them.



So, believing in the teachings of Jesus concerning sin, and that includes OT sin as well, is sanctimonious and exclusionary? Staying away, turning away, running away, from sin in a house of Christian worship, is wrong? Believing that is the same as believing there is no sin, really, at all.

Question: What do you believe in, if anything?

But I do agree with your second sentence. Why would they, except to stir things up, kicking and screaming, cause trouble and condemn something the homosexual communi-tuh! doesn't believe in, anyway? If they believed in Jesus, they would see the error of their ways and repent of those ways. But the homosexuals don't, and won't, because they believe in what they want for themselves, not what God wants.


----------



## Chuckt

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> ...insurance businesses.



No because we know that God exists and hell is real for those who don't believe in God.  Insurance is for people who don't know and agnostics aren't part of the church.


----------



## Chuckt

littlelady said:


> So, to me what you are saying is your conversations are one way only; your way.  I don't like solicitors/salesman that come calling when I didn't request it.  You are saying you have no room to learn, and that you know it all.  I have stated many times that I am not a scholar on the Bible.  However, I believe I know enough to know what I believe.  You seem to be one of those that wants to shove belief down one's throat.  It doesn't work that way.  Actually, the opposite.  I deduct that you think conversation is a waste of time; as you say, it interrupts you.  Well, if that is how you feel, then it is not necessary for you and I to have any more conversation.  Do you have actual conversations with God?  And, I am not talking about prayer.  Good luck with your conversion techniques.  I am done conversing with you.  Carry on.



Can a dead person respond to the gospel?  No in the sense that you are dead and the fact that God didn't answer means that (1) you can't rebirth yourself and (2) God didn't perform a miracle.

Ephesians 2:1 ¶ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Romans 8:7   Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 

The unsaved person is carnal and has enmity (hatred) towards God.

Romans 3:11   There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  

The unsaved person doesn't seek after God.

So the Bible says you aren't seeking and you have hatred towards the real God and because you hate God, you hate his servants because you called me a name:

John 15:18 ¶ If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.  

So until you genuinely come to a saving knowledge of the truth, my taking the time to talk to you means that I don't spend time working on the gospel for someone else to come and that means that I waste time with you instead of having someone else come into the Kingdom of God for salvation.

I could talk to you but what would it yield?  You would think you are right in your own eyes:

Proverbs 21:2   Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.    

And if I answer you but can't prove something, you will think you are right in your own eyes and continue to go down the wrong path that everyone else seems to be going down.

Proverbs 26:4   Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

And the number of times to come into conflict with people hardens people's hearts:

Proverbs 29:1 ¶ He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.

And I'm not your friend yet because you are a non-Christian in my eyes:

2 Corinthians 6:14   Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?  

My grandmother was in the Church of England and there were a line of pastors who wanted to reform the church and they didn't so my grandmother didn't give me religion but only prayed for me because that is what wisdom and God told her to do.  I was in your shoes where I didn't want to listen so I lost out on a lot of early teaching that is older than me and I'm trying to remember what I have heard.

This wisdom is from God and it is older than you and I am following it.  You would only hold me back in what I want to do which is write Bible studies, preach the gospel, do evangelism, etc, etc, etc.  There are no heavenly rewards in wasting my time but I could easily charge you for what I do because this gospel is not cheap and my time isn't cheap either.


----------



## GURPS

GURPS said:


> the difference lies in, intent ....
> 
> 
> are you still shacked up with your gf *refusing to quit living in sin* - :slam: you are out a here
> are you living alone, and occasionally falling to resist the temptations of the flesh, or the bottle, or stealing, or lying or swearing, or ] - come on brother lets pray for strength and forgiveness




Matthew 18:15

15"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

b23hqb said:


> Gee, that's sorta the topic of this thread in the first place. If people don't want to buy that Jesus and His teachings (which include the OT rules on morality) are the only way, then they should not be offended when they are invited to leave.



Because certainly Jesus would give them the boot, wouldn't he?


----------



## vraiblonde

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> Because certainly Jesus would give them the boot, wouldn't he?



Nice "gotcha"


----------



## vraiblonde

b23hqb said:


> So, believing in the teachings of Jesus concerning sin, and that includes OT sin as well, is sanctimonious and exclusionary? Staying away, turning away, running away, from sin in a house of Christian worship, is wrong? Believing that is the same as believing there is no sin, really, at all.
> 
> Question: What do you believe in, if anything?
> 
> But I do agree with your second sentence. Why would they, except to stir things up, kicking and screaming, cause trouble and condemn something the homosexual communi-tuh! doesn't believe in, anyway? If they believed in Jesus, they would see the error of their ways and repent of those ways. But the homosexuals don't, and won't, because they believe in what they want for themselves, not what God wants.



Wherever you end up when you die, I want to go somewhere else.  Perfect Hell would be eternity surrounded by people like you.


----------



## Chuckt

GURPS said:


> Matthew 18:15
> 
> 15"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
> 
> 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
> 
> 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.



And have you gone to every single one or do you just pronounce judgment on them if they are sinners?


----------



## Gilligan

GURPS said:


> .. if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.



LMAO. The IRS was viewed dimly even then. ;-p  Didn't know the motorcycle gang also had a rep even back then.

Too bad they didn't come along much earlier. Would have been a classic rumble...The Pagans v. The Druids.   Only on Pay-per-view, of course.


----------



## Chuckt

GURPS said:


> Matthew 18:15
> 
> 15"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
> 
> 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
> 
> 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.



Just curious though.  I believe homosexuality is a sin but how is it a sin against you?

Psalm 51:4	 	*Against thee, thee only, have I sinned*, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

I've always been taught that sin is against God so the scriptures say that David's sin with Bathsheba (see vs. 1) is against God and God alone (see verse 4.)

http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=51&v=4&t=KJV#top

So your use of Matthew 18 seems a bit unjustified and I'm still waiting to hear your answer if you actually went to every single one of those homosexuals and if they neglected to hear you, I'm wondering how many you have taken to church about their sin.


----------



## b23hqb

vraiblonde said:


> Wherever you end up when you die, I want to go somewhere else.  Perfect Hell would be eternity surrounded by people like you.



 Be careful what you wish for, o blonde one.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

For many Christians, being a good Christian equates with intolerance. When it comes to gays, fundamentalist Christians are just as intolerant as Muslims. This thread just reminded me, as many threads in the religion forum do, of Gandhi's quote...

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” 
― Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## GURPS

I am not an Orator .... Matt says it better 






> The propagators of the Nice Doctrine can be seen and heard from anytime any Christian takes any bold stance on any cultural issue, or uses harsh language of any kind, or condemns any sinful act, or fights against evil with any force or conviction at all. As soon as he or she stands and says ‘This is wrong, and I will not compromise,’ the heretics swoop in with their trusty mantras.
> 
> [clip]
> 
> They insist that Jesus was a nice man, and that He never would have done anything to upset people. They say that He came down from Heaven to preach tolerance and acceptance, and He wouldn’t have used words that might lead to hurt feelings. They confidently sermonize about a meek and mild Messiah who was born into this Earthly realm on a mission to spark a constructive dialogue.
> 
> Now, It’s true that He is God and we are not. Jesus can say whatever He wants to say. But we are called to be like Christ, which begs the question: what is Christ like?
> 
> *Well, He is, among other things, uncompromising. He is intolerant of evil. He is disruptive. He is sometimes harsh. He is sometimes impolite. He is sometimes angry.*
> 
> He is always loving.
> 
> Christ was not and is not a cosmic guidance counselor, and He is not mankind’s best friend, nor did He call us to be. He made dogs for that role — our destiny is more substantial, and our path to it is far more challenging and dangerous.
> 
> And nice?
> 
> Where does nice factor into this?
> 
> Nice: affable, peachy, swell.
> 
> Nice has nothing to do with Christianity. I’ve got nothing against nice — nice is nice — but even serial killers can be nice to people. They generally are exceptionally affable, except when they’re murdering. That means they’re nice to, like, 97 or 98 percent of everyone they meet.
> 
> I guess they’re following Christ almost all of the time, right?
> 
> Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/04...t-and-neither-should-you/#86xhImiJXfyc1CAA.99


----------



## Radiant1

Although I don't think Jesus preached tolerance per se, He certainly didn't send people away. He let them walk away, but He didn't send them away. Heck, He even kept Judas in his midst knowing full well what Judas was about, so that ought to tell us something.






ProximaCentauri said:


> When it comes to gays, fundamentalist Christians are just as intolerant as Muslims.



It's not just gays. It's unfortunate, but I find myself making comparisons between the two often enough. Ever watch a documentary called "Jesus Camp"? I watched it a few years ago and it was scary stuff!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp


> At the camp, Fischer stresses the need for children to purify themselves in order to be part of the "army of God." She strongly believes that children need to be in the forefront of turning America toward conservative Christian values. She also feels that Christians need to focus on training kids since "the enemy" (other religions) is focused on training theirs. She compares the preparation she is giving children with the training of terrorists in the Middle East. "I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam," she tells the camera. "I want to see them radically laying down their lives for the gospel, as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine."



Jesus Camp 101: How To Strap On A Bomb


----------



## migtig

Radiant1 said:


> Although I don't think Jesus preached tolerance per se, He certainly didn't send people away. He let them walk away, but He didn't send them away. Heck, He even kept Judas in his midst knowing full well what Judas was about, so that ought to tell us something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just gays. It's unfortunate, but I find myself making comparisons between the two often enough. Ever watch a documentary called "Jesus Camp"? I watched it a few years ago and it was scary stuff!
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp
> 
> 
> Jesus Camp 101: How To Strap On A Bomb



I think I went to that camp.  


Back to the original topic, I see this as one of those personal dilemma struggles.  

We are supposed to welcome all to our churches, regardless of who they are and what they've done and what sins they've committed. 

We are not supposed to judge others.  That's not our responsibility.  We ourselves are not without sin.

However, we are not supposed to condone a continuation of a sinner sinning.  We are supposed to share the word of G-d and encourage them to sin no more or be cast out.  

So, it seems a bit contradictory.  

However, IMHO, it means, sure, come to church gamblers, fornicators, and queers, etc.  Hear about the word of G-d, the Gospel, the Truth, the Light, the Way.  Choose salvation.  Repent from your sins and sin no more.   I am here to encourage you and keep you on that path of righteousness, like you are there to keep me from straying as well.  And unless you come to me and tell me you are continuing your wicked ways, then I have no right to call you out for something I don't know about.  But at the same time, the church and its congregation doesn't have the right to amend G-d's word to make a sinful lifestyle as acceptable as bread and butter with no consequences.  That's not providing an opportunity for salvation and is doing a disservice to everyone.  

Summary, you the individual are not the judge and jury of someone else's sin.  However, unless one repents from their sin, they are not truly a Christian.


----------



## Chuckt

migtig said:


> Summary, you the individual are not the judge and jury of someone else's sin.  However, unless one repents from their sin, they are not truly a Christian.



It isn't gospel.  You can't fully repent of a nature you have.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

http://biblehub.com/1_john/1-8.htm

So if you think you have repented and you have no sin, according to John 1:8, you have deceived yourself.


----------



## Radiant1

migtig said:


> Summary, you the individual are not the judge and jury of someone else's sin.  However, unless one repents from their sin, they are not truly a Christian.



You are not the judge and jury of one's sin, but you are the judge and jury of one's repentance, so in essence what you are saying is that you are the judge and jury of whether someone is a Christian or not. If you're comfortable with that, then so be it, but personally, I would never go there. I can explain to you why if you wish.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> It's not just gays. It's unfortunate, but I find myself making comparisons between the two often enough. Ever watch a documentary called "Jesus Camp"? I watched it a few years ago and it was scary stuff!Jesus Camp 101: How To Strap On A Bomb



I viewed a Jesus Camp snipet on youtube and yeah, scary. The leaders should probably be arrested, if there were only a law prohibiting this, for the brainwashing they are inflicting on such young children. This is the dark side of 'freedom of religion'.

But what's even scarier is when a neurosurgeon running for president, also happens to be a creationist and remarks that Darwin was influenced by the [Devil]. Only in the US, could a candidate like this not immediately become a laughing stock and be laughed off the national stage. When seemingly otherwise intelligent people, subvert their intelligence to believe in a biblical fairytale, its disturbing...and when they happen to be leading in the polls for the presidential nomination from one of the two major political parties in the US, it's frightening.


----------



## b23hqb

ProximaCentauri said:


> I viewed a Jesus Camp snipet on youtube and yeah, scary. The leaders should probably be arrested, if there were only a law prohibiting this, for the brainwashing they are inflicting on such young children. This is the dark side of 'freedom of religion'.
> 
> But what's even scarier is when a neurosurgeon running for president, also happens to be a creationist and remarks that Darwin was influenced by the [Devil]. Only in the US, could a candidate like this not immediately become a laughing stock and be laughed off the national stage. When seemingly otherwise intelligent people, subvert their intelligence to believe in a biblical fairytale, its disturbing...and when they happen to be leading in the polls for the presidential nomination from one of the two major political parties in the US, it's frightening.



You are scary, for sure. But then, you probably enjoy all the halloween and zombie movies going down as well. Just the thought that intelligent people, a scientist doctor at that, is not capable of running a country, in your mind, is indeed frightening.


----------



## Chuckt

ProximaCentauri said:


> But what's even scarier is when a neurosurgeon running for president, also happens to be a creationist and remarks that Darwin was influenced by the [Devil]. Only in the US, could a candidate like this not immediately become a laughing stock and be laughed off the national stage. When seemingly otherwise intelligent people, subvert their intelligence to believe in a biblical fairytale, its disturbing...and when they happen to be leading in the polls for the presidential nomination from one of the two major political parties in the US, it's frightening.



Most of the presidents that have run for office have listed their faith and what kind of church they went to.  There was an actual book on it at college that listed every one.  Do you find it disturbing that most of them had claimed a faith?


----------



## cheezgrits

Chuckt said:


> Most of the presidents that have run for office have listed their faith and what kind of church they went to.  There was an actual book on it at college that listed every one.  Do you find it disturbing that most of them had claimed a faith?



No, it's not disturbing, just irrelevant.


----------



## onel0126

cheezgrits said:


> No, it's not disturbing, just irrelevant.



It wasn't irrelevant when the Protestant world went bat $hit crazy with the mere thought of Kennedy being elected purely because of his faith.


----------



## b23hqb

onel0126 said:


> It wasn't irrelevant when the Protestant world went bat $hit crazy with the mere thought of Kennedy being elected purely because of his faith.



55 years ago, and obviously plenty of dem protestants voted for him as well. Were you even alive to experience the "bat chit crazy" that you allege happened? It didn't seem to bother my Protestant, conservative military parents.

But it is nice to see some of the resident catholics finally chime in on this topic of allowing practicing homosexuality and other sin blatantly in a church. What's your stand on that, which is the OP of this thread.


----------



## onel0126

b23hqb said:


> 55 years ago, and obviously plenty of dem protestants voted for him as well. Were you even alive to experience the "bat chit crazy" that you allege happened? It didn't seem to bother my Protestant, conservative military parents.  But it is nice to see some of the resident catholics finally chime in on this topic of allowing practicing homosexuality and other sin blatantly in a church. What's your stand on that, which is the OP of this thread.



I was not alive. Were you alive when the Bible was written? Then shut up. Now be honest, are you really going to spew forth that there was no fear in electing a Catholic in 1960 due to unfounded fears that he would be a puppet of Rome?


----------



## b23hqb

cheezgrits said:


> No, it's not disturbing, just irrelevant.



It is quite relevant simply because it gives voters a look at what the candidate believes in, God or not, and it will shape voters intent. Absolutely relevant.

It's not required, for sure, but most responsible voters should know as much about the candidate they plan to vote for or not, don't you think? Or do you subscribe to the on-going, current, trendy Democratic method of don't ask why, just vote (D) for the most part?


----------



## ProximaCentauri

b23hqb said:


> You are scary, for sure. But then, you probably enjoy all the halloween and zombie movies going down as well.


Yeah, you have me pegged b23. I don't just enjoy zombie movies, I am a zombie - as I was dead once and brought back to life. And around Halloween time I like to dine on humans, preferably Christians 



b23hqb said:


> Just the thought that intelligent people, a scientist doctor at that, is not capable of running a country, in your mind, is indeed frightening.



It shouldn't be. Indeed, a president should have a high intellect, but not all intellects would make a good president.


----------



## Chuckt

ProximaCentauri said:


> Yeah, you have me pegged b23. I don't just enjoy zombie movies, I am a zombie - as I was dead once and brought back to life. And around Halloween time I like to dine on humans, preferably Christians
> 
> 
> 
> It shouldn't be. Indeed, a president should have a high intellect, but not all intellects would make a good president.



Halloween actually falls on the date that the angel of death struck Pharaohs' firstborn dead and the Egyptian's firstborn according to people I know who researched it.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Chuckt said:


> Most of the presidents that have run for office have listed their faith and what kind of church they went to.  There was an actual book on it at college that listed every one.  Do you find it disturbing that most of them had claimed a faith?



From the standpoint of identifying religious affiliation, no. And most have relied upon reason and critical thinking. But a few have not respected the separation of church and state and have allowed their religiosity to taint their decision making.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Doesn't committing the same sin over and over again make you an active practitioner of that sin?  If you know you can't keep from committing that sin doesn't that make you exactly the same as a homosexual?   Is it OK as long as you are deluded and think you are going to stop sinning, even though logic and your past actions say that you will not?


----------



## PeoplesElbow

onel0126 said:


> I was not alive. Were you alive when the Bible was written? Then shut up. Now be honest, are you really going to spew forth that there was no fear in electing a Catholic in 1960 due to unfounded fears that he would be a puppet of Rome?



When I was a kid growing up in the 80's a lot of people in my small town considered Catholic a bad word and you wasn't supposed to say so and so was a Catholic.


----------



## Chuckt

PeoplesElbow said:


> Doesn't committing the same sin over and over again make you an active practitioner of that sin?  If you know you can't keep from committing that sin doesn't that make you exactly the same as a homosexual?   Is it OK as long as you are deluded and think you are going to stop sinning, even though logic and your past actions say that you will not?



1) Committing the same sin over and over is practicing sin.

2) If you know you can't keep sinning, does that make you the same as a homosexual?  No.

3) Is it okay as long as you are deluded and think you are going to stop sinning even though your past actions say you will not stop sinning?

Every sin is willful so you can be blamed for sinning.


----------



## Bavarian

Here in FL there is a bill in the Legislature called Pastor Protection Act".  So no Priest or other clergy will be forced to witness same sex marriages.  Stirring up big  dodo with the Homosexuals.  I don't know about the Protestants but Catholic Priests always could refuse to witness Heterosexual marriages especially if the couple did not go to Engaged Encounter or Pre-Cana.  Why should anyone be forced to witness the vows and sign the marriage license.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Chuckt said:


> 2) If you know you can't keep sinning, does that make you the same as a homosexual?  No.
> 
> .



Why not?  Why is homosexuality worse?


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Bavarian said:


> Here in FL there is a bill in the Legislature called Pastor Protection Act".  So no Priest or other clergy will be forced to witness same sex marriages.  Stirring up big  dodo with the Homosexuals.  I don't know about the Protestants but Catholic Priests always could refuse to witness Heterosexual marriages especially if the couple did not go to Engaged Encounter or Pre-Cana.  Why should anyone be forced to witness the vows and sign the marriage license.



It is stupid that is even has to be thought of.  A religion can exclude whomever they want and have any requirements that they wish, no matter how silly.  Marriage on the other hand is not exclusive to any religion,  atheists get married and nobody really cares about that but any church should be able to refuse them as well.  Maybe they would refuse more athiests but they are a lot harder to spot.


----------



## b23hqb

onel0126 said:


> I was not alive. Were you alive when the Bible was written? Then shut up. Now be honest, are you really going to spew forth that there was no fear in electing a Catholic in 1960 due to unfounded fears that he would be a puppet of Rome?



Aren't all catholics puppets of Rome? Then, as today? If not, then why bother adhering to the papacy at all? Just skip that step and go to the original source, and that won't be ole Pete.


----------



## b23hqb

PeoplesElbow said:


> It is stupid that is even has to be thought of.  A religion can exclude whomever they want and have any requirements that they wish, no matter how silly.  Marriage on the other hand is not exclusive to any religion,  atheists get married and nobody really cares about that but any church should be able to refuse them as well.  Maybe they would refuse more athiests but they are a lot harder to spot.



It is stupid, for sure. But to get to your just earlier post about homosexuality being a different category of sin - for some reason, God chose to call it an abomination not once but twice. Paul denounces it quite harshly in Romans 1:18-27. It seems that practicing homosexuality is a flagrant, in your face toward God and His natural order of things.

No church that calls themselves Christian cannot allow open homosexuality in. If they do, they are thumbing their noses at God. Not a smart thing to do.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

b23hqb said:


> It is stupid, for sure. But to get to your just earlier post about homosexuality being a different category of sin - for some reason, God chose to call it an abomination not once but twice. Paul denounces it quite harshly in Romans 1:18-27. It seems that practicing homosexuality is a flagrant, in your face toward God and His natural order of things.
> 
> No church that calls themselves Christian cannot allow open homosexuality in. If they do, they are thumbing their noses at God. Not a smart thing to do.



Did he call homosexuality an abomination or the homosexual an abomination,  I think a lot of people have a hard time differentiating.


----------



## cheezgrits

b23hqb said:


> It is quite relevant simply because it gives voters a look at what the candidate believes in, God or not, and it will shape voters intent. Absolutely relevant.
> 
> It's not required, for sure, but most responsible voters should know as much about the candidate they plan to vote for or not, don't you think? Or do you subscribe to the on-going, current, trendy Democratic method of don't ask why, just vote (D) for the most part?



And you believe whatever the candidates tell you? Cause everyone that goes to church or proclaims a faith is devout and adherent to the philosophies and practices?

All religion is irrelevant except to that religion and it's followers. And that is how it should be.


----------



## GURPS

migtig said:


> However, IMHO, it means, sure, come to church gamblers, fornicators, and queers, etc.  Hear about the word of G-d, the Gospel, the Truth, the Light, the Way.  Choose salvation.  Repent from your sins and sin no more.   I am here to encourage you and keep you on that path of righteousness, like you are there to keep me from straying as well.  And unless you come to me and tell me you are continuing your wicked ways, then I have no right to call you out for something I don't know about.  But at the same time, the church and its congregation doesn't have the right to amend G-d's word to make a sinful lifestyle as acceptable as bread and butter with no consequences.  That's not providing an opportunity for salvation and is doing a disservice to everyone.
> 
> Summary, you the individual are not the judge and jury of someone else's sin.  However, unless one repents from their sin, they are not truly a Christian.


----------



## GURPS

PeoplesElbow said:


> If you know you can't keep from committing that sin .....





1 CORINTHIANS 10:13

There hath no temptation taken hold of you but such as is common to man. But God is faithful; He will not suffer you to be tempted beyond that which ye are able to bear, but with the temptation will also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

cheezgrits said:


> And you believe whatever the candidates tell you? Cause everyone that goes to church or proclaims a faith is devout and adherent to the philosophies and practices?
> 
> All religion is irrelevant except to that religion and it's followers. And that is how it should be.



Surely you can't be suggesting here that religious beliefs of both candidates and voters are not relevant to voting behavior? Especially in the US.
'God, Guns, and Gays' are extremely important to voters like b23 and white evangelicals, especially southern white evangelicals.


----------



## cheezgrits

ProximaCentauri said:


> Surely you can't be suggesting here that religious beliefs of both candidates and voters are not relevant to voting behavior? Especially in the US.
> 'God, Guns, and Gays' are extremely important to voters like b23 and white evangelicals, especially southern white evangelicals.



Influential, yes. Relevant, not really. But that's just me. I don't practice any particular religion, so I'm not relevant either.


----------



## Amused_despair

I would prefer candidates to follow George Washington's example when it comes to religion, and keep it private.  When they exclaim so loudly that they are a Christian it reminds me of Jesus commenting that when one prays to do so quietly, when one gives alms to do it so quietly that the left hand knows not what the right is doing.  But I guess the sheep need to be entertained and convinced so the candidates have to make a big deal about going to church and make sure everyone knows that they are as religious as the sheep expect them to be.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

cheezgrits said:


> Influential, yes. Relevant, not really. But that's just me. I don't practice any particular religion, so I'm not relevant either.



No, I would say that you're relevant and an example of the increase in the non-religious demographic in America. Even among the US religious, pious attitudes are changing as evidenced by the rapidly changing views on same sex marriage. 

Agnosticism/Atheism are on the rise in the US and millennials will significantly add to the non-religious demographic. This has relevancy to elections as the non-religious tend to vote democratic.


----------



## Amused_despair

But people like b23hqb will continue to scream for their way and only their way in this country.  They are as Christ-like as Genghis Khan but they insist on being called Christian.  They proclaim faith in their God and yet have no faith in their God.  They refuse to allow God's will to be done and worry about their salvation.  Instead they cling to their wealth and guns and give lip service to their God.  Where Jesus said "turn the other cheek"  they say "lock and load".  They would be happier being Jewish and only having to follow the Old Testament, but they hate being in the minority so they call themselves Christians.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

PeoplesElbow said:


> Did he call homosexuality an abomination or the homosexual an abomination,  I think a lot of people have a hard time differentiating.



Yes they certainly do. And btw, since homosexuality is found not only in humans but in many other animal species, are the animals an abomination as well? 

Homosexuality is nothing more than genetic variation. The idea that homosexuality is sin comes from primitive humans.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Amused_despair said:


> But people like b23hqb will continue to scream for their way and only their way in this country.  They are as Christ-like as Genghis Khan but they insist on being called Christian.  They proclaim faith in their God and yet have no faith in their God.  They refuse to allow God's will to be done and worry about their salvation.  Instead they cling to their wealth and guns and give lip service to their God.  Where Jesus said "turn the other cheek"  they say "lock and load".  They would be happier being Jewish and only having to follow the Old Testament, but they hate being in the minority so they call themselves Christians.



 I have to agree, and this is especially true of white southern evangelicals but there's an element of this throughout the country. They have made their love of glocks and assault rifles, and the siege mentality that goes with it, a religion unto itself.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Amused_despair said:


> But people like b23hqb will continue to scream for their way and only their way in this country.  They are as Christ-like as Genghis Khan but they insist on being called Christian.  They proclaim faith in their God and yet have no faith in their God.  They refuse to allow God's will to be done and worry about their salvation.  Instead they cling to their wealth and guns and give lip service to their God.  Where Jesus said "turn the other cheek"  they say "lock and load".  They would be happier being Jewish and only having to follow the Old Testament, but they hate being in the minority so they call themselves Christians.



Well put. Great post!


----------



## PJay

I just puked. If you hate Christians so much get the hell out of the religion forum!


----------



## vraiblonde

Homesick said:


> I just puked. If you hate Christians so much get the hell out of the religion forum!



I don't know if it's hating Christians so much as pointing out that Christians seem to hate _them_ (along with everyone else in the world).  Not all Christians, of course, but there is a section of them who seem to want to *be* God and do God's job of judging and smiting.  Honestly, there is nothing I love more than using actual Bible verses to rebut some sanctimonious "Christian's" ridiculous claims.  That just makes my day.  It's doubly hilarious to see some of the meanest people on here being all self-righteous and holier-than-thou, then when they're called on it fall back on the old "I'm just a poor sinner, and Jesus loves me. He hates YOUR ass, but loves me!"

If you could see it from my unbeliever's eyes, you would laugh until your stomach hurt.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> I viewed a Jesus Camp snipet on youtube and yeah, scary. The leaders should probably be arrested, if there were only a law prohibiting this, for the brainwashing they are inflicting on such young children. This is the dark side of 'freedom of religion'.
> 
> But what's even scarier is when a neurosurgeon running for president, also happens to be a creationist and remarks that Darwin was influenced by the [Devil]. Only in the US, could a candidate like this not immediately become a laughing stock and be laughed off the national stage. When seemingly otherwise intelligent people, subvert their intelligence to believe in a biblical fairytale, its disturbing...and when they happen to be leading in the polls for the presidential nomination from one of the two major political parties in the US, it's frightening.



Truthfully, the thought of a fundamentalist or overtly Evangelical Christian in office scares the crap out of me as much as the thought of a Muslim in office.



ProximaCentauri said:


> Yeah, you have me pegged b23. I don't just enjoy zombie movies, I am a zombie - as I was dead once and brought back to life. And around Halloween time I like to dine on humans, preferably Christians



My fellow zombie!  Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Jews...they all taste like chicken...except one Jew, He tastes like bread! 



PeoplesElbow said:


> Doesn't committing the same sin over and over again make you an active practitioner of that sin?  If you know you can't keep from committing that sin doesn't that make you exactly the same as a homosexual?   Is it OK as long as you are deluded and think you are going to stop sinning, even though logic and your past actions say that you will not?



Didn't you know that beating your wife and kids repeatedly and often is so much more righteous than having butt sex?????



PeoplesElbow said:


> When I was a kid growing up in the 80's a lot of people in my small town considered Catholic a bad word and you wasn't supposed to say so and so was a Catholic.



Back in the 80s I visited my Pentecostal cousins in Pensacola after my grandmother's funeral. When they found out I was Catholic they all took one step away from me and looked at my head as if looking for horns. They didn't speak to me after that and have yet to do so after 29 years. 

And it's not just back then either. A few years ago the girl down the street started hanging out with my daughter at our house. When she found out we were Catholic she told my daughter "I'm not supposed to like you, but you seem cool." Her dad didn't allow his daughter to hang out with us anymore but the kids secretly kept in contact via Facebook because, you know, they genuinely liked each other as human beings regardless of religious affiliation. Trust me when I say it wasn't easy explaining to my 8 year old why her friend's dad wouldn't let her see her anymore. 



b23hqb said:


> Aren't all catholics puppets of Rome? Then, as today? If not, then why bother adhering to the papacy at all? Just skip that step and go to the original source, and that won't be ole Pete.



Obviously not. If that were the case, then the catholic Supreme Court justices would agree on issues and there wouldn't be Catholic politicians that run the gamut of political affiliation.

What do you think the original source is? I have more to say about that, but I'll let you answer the question first.


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> Truthfully, the thought of a fundamentalist or overtly Evangelical Christian in office scares the crap out of me as much as the thought of a Muslim in office.



Does it bother you as much as the Pope bowing towards Mecca in a Mosque?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/p...urkeys-mosque-head-bowed-toward-mecca-130449/

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1886454-155/pope-prays-in-istanbul-mosque-in

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/29/us-pope-turkey-idUSKCN0JD09U20141129


----------



## b23hqb

PeoplesElbow said:


> Did he call homosexuality an abomination or the homosexual an abomination,  I think a lot of people have a hard time differentiating.



If by "he" you are referring to God, yes, God calls homosexuality an abomination - twice. If you are referring to me, I'm just passing on informational references. Ya'll can decide the rest. If God calls it an abomination, then it would logically follow that those that live it would fall into the same category s God's declaration. They still have a chance to repent of it, though. It's up to them. 

Like it or not.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> Does it bother you as much as the Pope bowing towards Mecca in a Mosque?
> 
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/p...urkeys-mosque-head-bowed-toward-mecca-130449/
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1886454-155/pope-prays-in-istanbul-mosque-in
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/29/us-pope-turkey-idUSKCN0JD09U20141129



I don't know what you think that has to do with American politics, but that doesn't bother me in the least. If you think you're too good to pray to God in a mosque or anywhere else facing any which way, then you have a high opinion of yourself and a low opinion of God's omnipresence. Thanks for giving me a perfect example of why I don't want a fundamentalist or overtly Evangelical Christian in the oval office. Have you been to Jesus camp lately?


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> I don't know what you think that has to do with American politics, but that doesn't bother me in the least. If you think you're too good to pray to God in a mosque or anywhere else facing any which way, then you have a high opinion of yourself and a low opinion of God's omnipresence. Thanks for giving me a perfect example of why I don't want a fundamentalist or overtly Evangelical Christian in the oval office. Have you been to Jesus camp lately?



I study the real word of God so I don't need to follow Jesus camp.  I don't actually know what Jesus camp is but I'll give it a look, Lord willing.  The truth is that if people want to follow Satan, there is really little I can do because they are going to do what they want to do.

Why is the Pope in a Mosque?  Why is he giving credibility to Islam?


----------



## cheezgrits

Homesick said:


> I just puked. If you hate Christians so much get the hell out of the religion forum!



Because Christian is the ONLY religion in the world? Did we change the name of the forum to Christian religion? Pssst....your ignorance is showing.


----------



## cheezgrits

Chuckt said:


> I study the real word of God so I don't need to follow Jesus camp.  I don't actually know what Jesus camp is but I'll give it a look, Lord willing.  The truth is that if people want to follow Satan, there is really little I can do because they are going to do what they want to do.
> 
> Why is the Pope in a Mosque?  Why is he giving credibility to Islam?



Yeah, becasue we all know that Christianity is the only REAL world religion. I mean, just look at all the good it did for all my indigenous tribes! Sheesh, you are a goddamn idiot.


----------



## Chuckt

cheezgrits said:


> Yeah, becasue we all know that Christianity is the only REAL world religion. I mean, just look at all the good it did for all my indigenous tribes! Sheesh, you are a goddamn idiot.



I'm part Iroquois and the indians were given guns and gunpowder from the French.  I have some old history books so they did their part to fight and fighting is never fair.
Your blame doesn't take into account the indian's actions.  In other words, it takes two to start a fight and when you start fighting, there is a loser.


----------



## Chuckt

cheezgrits said:


> Because Christian is the ONLY religion in the world? Did we change the name of the forum to Christian religion? Pssst....your ignorance is showing.



And what religion do you expect the atheists to adopt?


----------



## cheezgrits

Chuckt said:


> I'm part Iroquois and the indians were given guns and gunpowder from the French.  I have some old history books so they did their part to fight and fighting is never fair.
> Your blame doesn't take into account the indian's actions.  In other words, it takes two to start a fight and when you start fighting, there is a loser.



Just stop it. No one is "part" first Nation. If you do not know how to use the proper name in the language of the people you reference, then don't do it. Being "native" is all or nothing, you either are or you are not. Now, go read your history books and come back when you are schooled. Do you even know the name for what you think your are? Do you even know that "Iroquois" is not a people but a Nation of many peoples "the first peoples"? Do not use a reference to some flawed vision of your perceived family history to prop up a irrelevant argument you are making about gunpowder. The first Nations were eradicated, slaughtered, raped, enslaved and ruined due to the conquest of "Christians".  

Don't be an idiot with this, I will leave you on a path of scorched earth on these matters.  Go back to being an "expert" on the Bible, you will not win this fight.


----------



## cheezgrits

Chuckt said:


> And what religion do you expect the atheists to adopt?



Really? You are asking this? Stop being ignorant. You do know that there is more than one religion in the world, correct?


----------



## Chuckt

cheezgrits said:


> Just stop it. No one is "part" first Nation. If you do not know how to use the proper name in the language of the people you reference, then don't do it. Being "native" is all or nothing, you either are or you are not. Now, go read your history books and come back when you are schooled. Do you even know the name for what you think your are? Do you even know that "Iroquois" is not a people but a Nation of many peoples "the first peoples"? Do not use a reference to some flawed vision of your perceived family history to prop up a irrelevant argument you are making about gunpowder. The first Nations were eradicated, slaughtered, raped, enslaved and ruined due to the conquest of "Christians".
> 
> Don't be an idiot with this, I will leave you on a path of scorched earth on these matters.  Go back to being an "expert" on the Bible, you will not win this fight.



Make sure you read some links:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/a-fate-worse-than-death/


----------



## cheezgrits

Chuckt said:


> Make sure you read some links:
> 
> http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/a-fate-worse-than-death/



Again, do not trifle with me on these matters. I do not need your Google acrobatics to teach me. I ask you kindly to not refer to yourself as any of the first peoples. You are not worthy of the words.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> I study the real word of God so I don't need to follow Jesus camp.  I don't actually know what Jesus camp is but I'll give it a look, Lord willing.  The truth is that if people want to follow Satan, there is really little I can do because they are going to do what they want to do.
> 
> Why is the Pope in a Mosque?  Why is he giving credibility to Islam?



Do you study the real Word of God or your version of it? You do have a tendency for eisegesis and creating God in your own image.

The Pope was in a mosque for ecumenical purposes toward another Abrahamic religion. (Ecumenism is something you actually might want to try sometime.) He was bringing the light of Christ into a mosque. The fact that you think differently says far more about you than him.

What do you expect the Pope to do, hide his head in the sand and ignore Islam? Maybe you think he should call for a crusade? Or perhaps you think he should sit down and read the bible according to chuckt and then tell others how wrong they are?


----------



## littlelady

Radiant1 said:


> Do you study the real Word of God or your version of it? You do have a tendency for eisegesis and creating God in your own image.
> 
> The Pope was in a mosque for ecumenical purposes toward another Abrahamic religion. (Ecumenism is something you actually might want to try sometime.) He was bringing the light of Christ into a mosque. The fact that you think differently says far more about you than him.
> 
> What do you expect the Pope to do, hide his head in the sand and ignore Islam? Maybe you think he should call for a crusade? Or perhaps you think he should sit down and read the bible according to chuckt and then tell others how wrong they are?



Is there a point where you will just throw up your hands when trying to discuss religion with Chuck?  In my 4 years here, I have always admired your posts.  You know your stuff and are very nice in the way you present your thoughts.  You will not change Chuck's rhetoric.  He is accepting of nothing, but what he thinks.  He is a lost cause, jmo.


----------



## littlelady

Chuckt said:


> I'm part Iroquois and the indians were given guns and gunpowder from the French.  I have some old history books so they did their part to fight and fighting is never fair.
> Your blame doesn't take into account the indian's actions.  In other words, it takes two to start a fight and when you start fighting, there is a loser.



Yes, it takes two, but Native Americans were minding their own biz; yes fighting against each other, but then the White man showed up.  What did you expect them to do?  Now, we are just waiting for extreme jihadist to show up.  Which they have, but there will be more.  History is indeed repeating itself.  Do you not acknowledge that a 'religion' is trying to take over the world; again.  I have faith in my religion, but I have more faith in how I will defend myself and my family when the 'religious war' comes to America.

Edit:  It seems obvious that religion will be the demise of the World.  It is a shame because we are all the same; as in human beings together.  It seems inconceivable to me that religion, which is intangible and belief of the unknown, will be the reason in the end that the World explodes.  

Just for the record, my Native American heritage is Shawnee.


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> What do you expect the Pope to do, hide his head in the sand and ignore Islam? Maybe you think he should call for a crusade? Or perhaps you think he should sit down and read the bible according to chuckt and then tell others how wrong they are?



I had been debating against users on other forums that saw a Vatican document to make Allah "God".

Perhaps the Pope has to pay a tax for Muslims not to liquidate Catholics in other regions.  The tax is called Jizya and they have to pay for protection.



> Jizya (sometimes written as jizyah and pronounced “jiz-yuh”) is the term for a tax paid by non-Muslims. The tax is the result of a centuries old contract called a dhimma. Under a dhimma, non-Muslims who lived in a Muslim state were protected under the law so long as they paid the tax: they were referred to as ahlu dh-dhimmati (people of protection) or simply al-dhimma or dhimmis. The arrangement is sometimes referred to as a “residence in return for taxes.”



http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...arns-christians-convert-pay-tax-leave-or-die/

Your people will be part of the one world religion one day.


----------



## Amused_despair

Chuckt said:


> Perhaps the Pope has to pay a tax for Muslims not to liquidate Catholics in other regions.  The tax is called Jizya and they have to pay for protection.



Perhaps you should stick to only fiction in your own mind instead of making up stories of others.


----------



## Amused_despair

Chuckt said:


> I'm part Iroquois and the indians were given guns and gunpowder from the French.  I have some old history books so they did their part to fight and fighting is never fair.
> Your blame doesn't take into account the indian's actions.  In other words, it takes two to start a fight and when you start fighting, there is a loser.



Do you actually read the inane babble you post as you type or only when you sober up?  The white man brought disease, corruption,, slavery, and death to the Indians.  They slaughtered them in the name of the Prince of Peace to get their land and wealth.  They killed far more with smallpox then they ever shot.  You have some old history books??????  I have a needle and thread, doesn't make me a seamstress.  when you comment on stuff you know nothing about as if you are an expert, it only goes to show how little you do know on everything else as well. Stick to your Google searches, simpleton.


----------



## Radiant1

littlelady said:


> Is there a point where you will just throw up your hands when trying to discuss religion with Chuck?  In my 4 years here, I have always admired your posts.  You know your stuff and are very nice in the way you present your thoughts.  You will not change Chuck's rhetoric.  He is accepting of nothing, but what he thinks.  He is a lost cause, jmo.



I've been involved in apologetics for over 22 years, so not really. If you'll notice, I only discuss it with him when he slanders Catholicism. Other than that, he's free to say whatever he wants without my interference. He's not the first on this forum to be hateful nor will he be the last. People like chuck are legion. I'm not out to convert him, I'm just out to enlighten what is otherwise a darkened mind with facts and context.





Chuckt said:


> I had been debating against users on other forums that saw a Vatican document to make Allah "God".
> 
> Perhaps the Pope has to pay a tax for Muslims not to liquidate Catholics in other regions.  The tax is called Jizya and they have to pay for protection.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...arns-christians-convert-pay-tax-leave-or-die/
> 
> Your people will be part of the one world religion one day.



"Allah" is the word for God in Arabic. Arabic speaking Christians call God "Allah". The Vatican doesn't have to make "Allah" God, He already is. I don't know about you, but I believe in One God; therefore, there can only be God no matter what someone else calls Him or what they believe about Him or how they worship Him. To think differently is to believe in a plurality of gods like the Hindus or pagans. And by the way, if there was some sort of vast conspiracy to convert all Muslims to Christianity, would you have a problem with it?

I've studied Islam and then debated Muslims for years so I'm well aware of what jizya is, and I'm pretty sure they like that in the form of money not prayers. Never the less, if the Pope can do something to save Christian lives would you hold it against him?

You didn't answer my questions (surprise surprise). What do you expect the pope to do? Nothing? Call for a crusade? Sit at his desk and read scripture and then self-righteously point fingers at everyone else? You are your own pope so what do you do? Oh wait, never mind, we already know the answer to that question.

As for the one world religion crap, in practical terms I just don't see that ever being possible in this world, and it's more or less an Evangelical boogie man. But having said that, we have been commissioned by Jesus. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." What do you have to fear from that, chuck? Christ is with me, isn't He with you?


----------



## GURPS

Radiant1 said:


> "Allah" is the word for God in Arabic.




'Allah' was the name of the Moon God before Mo came along ....


----------



## Radiant1

GURPS said:


> 'Allah' was the name of the Moon God before Mo came along ....



Do you believe in moon gods?


----------



## PsyOps

Chuckt said:


> Why is the Pope in a Mosque?  Why is he giving credibility to Islam?



Why did Jesus go into the home of one of the most hated people of his day - Matthew the tax collector?  Was he giving Matthew credibility, or was he showing Christian compassion and love.  Why did he rebuke those that were going to stone an adulterer to death, and rather than recognize this horrible 'tradition, he showed mercy on the woman?  Why did he save the criminal on the cross; when even on his dying day Jesus had compassion on him?  Jesus could have very-well said "Dude, you had an entire life to atone for your sins; yet you do it now, when you know you're going to die?"

Didn't Jesus say: "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?" - Matthew 5:46-47


----------



## GURPS

Radiant1 said:


> Do you believe in moon gods?



:huh:


----------



## Radiant1

GURPS said:


> :huh:



If you called God The Great Pink Elephant In The Sky would He cease to be God? God, Allah, Pink Elephant, whatever, it's just a name. God is God. In fact, I'm pretty sure that God is so God that He doesn't care what you call Him because He's far above and beyond that triviality, ya know?


----------



## b23hqb

PsyOps said:


> Why did Jesus go into the home of one of the most hated people of his day - Matthew the tax collector?  Was he giving Matthew credibility, or was he showing Christian compassion and love.  Why did he rebuke those that were going to stone an adulterer to death, and rather than recognize this horrible 'tradition, he showed mercy on the woman?  Why did he save the criminal on the cross; when even on his dying day Jesus had compassion on him?
> 
> Didn't Jesus say: "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?" - Matthew 5:46-47



Jesus, as recorded by the Matthew you just cited, said - Matt 18:15-17 - that if your brother doesn't listen to you, and then won't listen to two or three others, and then won't listen to the entire congregation/family/church, you need to unceremoniously excommunicate them from said church/assembly/family. In no uncertain words. They must leave.

Paul strongly reiterated the same in 1 Cor 5 as a whole, specifically vs. 3-6. I'm not going to quote it - I urge readers to investigate it themselves.

Allowing into the fellowship known sin lifestyles in any situation must not be allowed. They will repent if they are serious about it.

If the sinner will not repent, truly, from their known, established sin, then they are to be not allowed to stay in the church/assembly/meeting/family in order to not allow others to become infected.

I will quote this: The Sins that Warrant Excommunication

"It would not be possible to rid the body of Christ of all traces of sin, lest we expel most everyone from the church.* However, expulsion is a fate reserved for those matters of sin that are especially blatant and infectious to the body -- and which have resisted our sincere efforts of correction. While it is clear that the church could potentially expel persons for persisting in any of the sins listed in Gal. 5:19-21, the Victor Bible Source Book says that scripture specifies at least seven sins for which excommunication is prescribed if repentance is not secured *(See Prov. 22:10, 1 Cor. 5:1-13, Titus 3:10-11, Matt. 18:15-20). These are:"

    (1) Immorality — adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, rape, sexual impurity, etc.
    (2) Greed — The desire to accumulate gain by base methods.
    (3) Idolatry — Participation in occult practices.
    (4) Drunkenness — Intoxication with alcohol.
    (5) Extortion — Robbery, theft, stealing.
    (6) Foul tongue — A railer, verbally abusive, reviling, slanderous, insulting, contentious, speech which causes injury or damage.
    (7) Heretic — One who causes division by a party spirit, a self-willed opinion, or contentions over false or exotic doctrines.

It's not difficult, if you desire, to stay away from any of those unless you don't want to, and choose not to, stay away from them.

Don't argue with me on any of those. You will have to argue against the Bible. Good luck with that. 

Compassion for, helping others repent of their sin, are Christian teachings, by Christ. But it has it's limits. Even Christ had his limits. And this topic is one of those limits.

Whether you/me/anybody doesn't like it or not.


----------



## PsyOps

b23hqb said:


> Don't argue with me on any of those. You will have to argue against the Bible. Good luck with that.
> 
> Compassion for, helping others repent of their sin, are Christian teachings, by Christ. But it has it's limits. Even Christ had his limits. And this topic is one of those limits.
> 
> Whether you/me/anybody doesn't like it or not.



I was answering to why the Pope was in a Mosque; and it wasn’t to give credibility to Islam.  If his presence there resulted in one Muslim being saved, I’d say that was a trip worth of what Christ intended.  We don’t know if this was the case; but that, I believe, was the intent.


----------



## b23hqb

PsyOps said:


> I was answering to why the Pope was in a Mosque; and it wasn’t to give credibility to Islam.  If his presence there resulted in one Muslim being saved, I’d say that was a trip worth of what Christ intended.  We don’t know if this was the case; but that, I believe, was the intent.



OK with your take on whatever reason the vatican went to the mosque. I don't backread pages on any thread - your Matt quote fit right into this thread. My post stands to the OP in this thread.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> If you called God The Great Pink Elephant In The Sky would He cease to be God? God, Allah, Pink Elephant, whatever, it's just a name. God is God. In fact, I'm pretty sure that God is so God that He doesn't care what you call Him because He's far above and beyond that triviality, ya know?



Agree, if a god of the universe existed he would not care what humans chose to call him. But I find it even more absurd that any intelligent force behind the creation of billions of galaxies, pulsars, and black holes could possibly require human worship or care about what humans choose to do while naked!


----------



## b23hqb

ProximaCentauri said:


> Agree, if a god of the universe existed he would not care what humans chose to call him. But I find it even more absurd that any intelligent force behind the creation of billions of galaxies, pulsars, and black holes could possibly require human worship or care about what humans choose to do while naked!



Ol' God is really messing with ya, isn't He?


----------



## Chuckt

ProximaCentauri said:


> Agree, if a god of the universe existed he would not care what humans chose to call him. But I find it even more absurd that any intelligent force behind the creation of billions of galaxies, pulsars, and black holes could possibly require human worship or care about what humans choose to do while naked!



I want proof that God created things He didn't care about.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> I want proof .......



  Classic. Resorting always to the most fundamental building block of all religions...requiring proof that something does NOT exist - proof that is obviously impossible to provide - as the basis for proving that it does.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chuckt said:


> I want proof that God created things He didn't care about.



I want proof that God created things.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> I want proof that God created things.



Do you believe something can come out of nothing?


----------



## ProximaCentauri

PsyOps said:


> Do you believe something can come out of nothing?



Before hypotheticals are entertained, you and your brother Chuckt have the burden to prove that the 'God' you believe in, Jehovah, the god of the Bible, actually exists AND is the one true god and creator of the universe. After all, you are 100% certain he is, are you not? By the way, the argument…’the God of the Bible exists because it says so in the Bible’- a circular reasoning fallacy - will not suffice. Good luck…


----------



## Gilligan

PsyOps said:


> Do you believe something can come out of nothing?



How would we know that there ever was a "time" when literally "nothing" existed? Do we even know what "nothing" is?  I know I don't.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Gilligan said:


> Do we even know what "nothing" is?  I know I don't.



"Nothing" is what I have left in my bottle of Macallan.


----------



## Chuckt

PsyOps said:


> Do you believe something can come out of nothing?



The other theory is that the universe is eternal and always existed.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> Agree, if a god of the universe existed he would not care what humans chose to call him. But I find it even more absurd that any intelligent force behind the creation of billions of galaxies, pulsars, and black holes could possibly require human worship or care about what humans choose to do while naked!



The worship is for our benefit not His. As for what we do when we're naked, I don't know what to say about that. All I know is, as established in a previous thread, He doesn't mind if I dance around a fire naked.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> The worship is for our benefit not His.



You might say I worship my chocolate lab - Dog is God spelled backwards 



Radiant1 said:


> As for what we do when we're naked, I don't know what to say about that. All I know is, as established in a previous thread, He doesn't mind if I dance around a fire naked.



Now that's a God I can believe in.


----------



## Gilligan

Radiant1 said:


> ..... I dance around a fire naked.



Hey!...a fellow Druid?


----------



## Gilligan

ProximaCentauri said:


> "Nothing" is what I have left in my bottle of Macallan.



Well that kind of "nothing" is a concept I can wrap my head around.  And have..on occasion.


----------



## Bird Dog

I do not understand why non-believers keep wanting believers to prove there is a God. I see God around me everyday.
We need not prove anything to you. You keep trying to prove to us there is no God. Have at it and by the way it is impossible as you know to prove a negative, so have fun.

May God Bless your tormented souls.


----------



## b23hqb

But to just get back on topic - what are ya'll gonna do when practicing homosexuals/couples, or others known to be practicing/living sin, come into your parish and/or church and demand they be included? It's gonna happen sooner or later, probably sooner. That is the topic of the thread.


----------



## Gilligan

Bird Dog said:


> We need not prove anything to you. .



Chuck was the one that asked for proof. Me?...I'm easy.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

b23hqb said:


> But to just get back on topic - what are ya'll gonna do when practicing homosexuals/couples, or others known to be practicing/living sin, come into your parish and/or church and demand they be included? It's gonna happen sooner or later, probably sooner. That is the topic of the thread.



Do what you think Jesus would do. Are they not God's children too?


----------



## PsyOps

ProximaCentauri said:


> Before hypotheticals are entertained, you and your brother Chuckt have the burden to prove that the 'God' you believe in, Jehovah, the god of the Bible, actually exists AND is the one true god and creator of the universe. After all, you are 100% certain he is, are you not? By the way, the argument…’the God of the Bible exists because it says so in the Bible’- a circular reasoning fallacy - will not suffice. Good luck…



Well, that's the thrust of the question isn't it?  We know all this stuff (our universe) is here.  How did it all get here?  Was it always here, or did it just pop up out of nothing?  If so, how?  I mean if you want to talk about "circular reasoning fallacy"... how did the universe get here?  When you can answer that affirmatively, and that affirmed answer discounts any possibility of God, then we're done having these discussions.


----------



## PsyOps

Gilligan said:


> How would we know that there ever was a "time" when literally "nothing" existed? Do we even know what "nothing" is?  I know I don't.



So, the universe was always here.  Isn't that the same sort of thing we say about God?  How can that be?  I mean physicists keep running around talking about how one day the universe will collapse in on itself and time will end.


----------



## PsyOps

Chuckt said:


> The other theory is that the universe is eternal and always existed.



I'm willing to entertain any 'theory' when it can be accompanied by indisputable facts.  I apply the same measure of scrutiny to science - that has proven very little about the existence of our universe - as people like Proxima applies to Christianity.  There is really very little that science knows about our universe.  I watched 'How the Universe Works' on the Discovery Channel the other day.  It was about the Big Bang and what happened in the first second.  They talked about what that mass was like with emphatic belief that this is how it was; the totality of our universe crammed into a tiny little speck smaller than the head of a pin (or something like that).  This really requires a leap of faith to believe such a thing.  But, I’m not beyond considering it.  Then they talked about more events happening in the first second of the universe than will ever happen going forward to the end of the universe.  There is absolutely no way of knowing this.  Then they started getting into parallel universes and such… that’s when I started rolling my eyes in the same manner people like Proxima would roll his eyes when talking about religion.  

It all requires certain levels of faith in what you’re being told, or what you think you’ve discovered.  The only difference is, I don’t completely dismiss certain possibilities about our universe.  I don’t believe in the literal 7 day creation.  I don’t necessarily believe there was a literal Adam and Eve.  I can go into why, but will save time for now by saying there is some science that goes into my thinking.  None of it tells me our universe, and the life that’s in it, just popped up out of nothing.  It’s either always been here and is in a constant state of cycling – expanding and contracting, creating life and destroying life – or it was created.  In either story, you have to ask “how did it get here?”  How does life – an organized, predictable event – come about where life didn’t exist, out of unpredictable, chaotic events?


----------



## b23hqb

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> Do what you think Jesus would do. Are they not God's children too?



OK. I'm asking "what would YOU do"? What do you think Jesus would do? If you follow what Jesus teaches, as your premise suggests, then you would follow scripture on just what Jesus would do, right? 

You would welcome them in, as would I. Then, if you witnessed a sinful lifestyle without doubt, you would talk to them, show them scripture, ask them to repent, as would I. If they refuse to change, then you would bring two or three others into the private meeting to discuss the same problem, as would I. If the person/s refuse to change their ways, then you would bring them up in front of the entire church, as would I. If they refuse to repent, then you would unceremoniously excommunicate them, as would I, and as would Jesus.

That's according to his Word, and recorded words as He taught his disciples.

Do we agree then?


----------



## seekeroftruth

*Proverbs 6:16 There are six things the Lord hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
17         haughty eyes,
        a lying tongue,
        hands that shed innocent blood,
18         a heart that devises wicked schemes,
        feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19         a false witness who pours out lies
        and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.*​


----------



## Amused_despair

Throughout the four Gospels, the only group who consistently got Jesus stirred up:  Hypocrites.


----------



## b23hqb

seekeroftruth said:


> *Proverbs 6:16 There are six things the Lord hates,
> seven that are detestable to him:
> 17         haughty eyes,
> a lying tongue,
> hands that shed innocent blood,
> 18         a heart that devises wicked schemes,
> feet that are quick to rush into evil,
> 19         a false witness who pours out lies
> and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.*​



Actually, He hates much more than that - like every sin, from the smallest white lie, to the most heinous thing imagined, or in this day, the unimaginable that has not yet occurred. Just give the depraved mind of man a little more time to think up the next worst thing.

Other than that, reading a chapter of Proverbs every day, every month of the year, is very profitable for all who do.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

b23hqb said:


> OK. I'm asking "what would YOU do"? What do you think Jesus would do? If you follow what Jesus teaches, as your premise suggests, then you would follow scripture on just what Jesus would do, right?
> 
> You would welcome them in, as would I. Then, if you witnessed a sinful lifestyle without doubt, you would talk to them, show them scripture, ask them to repent, as would I. If they refuse to change, then you would bring two or three others into the private meeting to discuss the same problem, as would I. If the person/s refuse to change their ways, then you would bring them up in front of the entire church, as would I. If they refuse to repent, then you would unceremoniously excommunicate them, as would I, and as would Jesus.
> 
> That's according to his Word, and recorded words as He taught his disciples.
> 
> Do we agree then?



No. We do not agree. You would publicly "out" the homosexual in front of the congregation, and demand that he/she change who they are. If they did not, you would cast them out of the church. 

I am not a Christian, and do not believe in God. Reading these kind of cruel attitudes from people who call themselves Christians just reinforces my atheism. This is not how humans should treat one another.


----------



## PsyOps

b23hqb said:


> OK. I'm asking "what would YOU do"? What do you think Jesus would do? If you follow what Jesus teaches, as your premise suggests, then you would follow scripture on just what Jesus would do, right?
> 
> You would welcome them in, as would I. Then, if you witnessed a sinful lifestyle without doubt, you would talk to them, show them scripture, ask them to repent, as would I. If they refuse to change, then you would bring two or three others into the private meeting to discuss the same problem, as would I. If the person/s refuse to change their ways, then you would bring them up in front of the entire church, as would I. If they refuse to repent, then you would unceremoniously excommunicate them, as would I, and as would Jesus.
> 
> That's according to his Word, and recorded words as He taught his disciples.
> 
> Do we agree then?



Do you do the same to people that are in your church that break the law - like incessantly speeding.  How about those that are have adulterous affairs, or abuse their wives or kids, lose their temper routinely, use foul language routinely, gamble their savings away… What about the pastor that takes from the plate to live an exorbitant lifestyle, when so many are struggling?  As long as we have the poor among us, there should be not one wealthy pastor.  I could on and on.

I have seen this more times than I can count.  Yet, Christians tend to get outraged with only certain sins and reject people that don’t fit that narrow prism.


----------



## b23hqb

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> No. We do not agree. You would publicly "out" the homosexual in front of the congregation, and demand that he/she change who they are. If they did not, you would cast them out of the church.
> 
> I am not a Christian, and do not believe in God. Reading these kind of cruel attitudes from people who call themselves Christians just reinforces my atheism. This is not how humans should treat one another.



Exactly how Jesus and his Word, the Bible, demonstrate the proper way handle church discipline in the church, and to excommunicate, if necessary, willing sin in the church. The homosexual or sinner would out themselves based on witnesses, and if they are not ashamed of their chosen lifestyle, they would not care about being "outed". Indeed, I would suggest they would celebrate it if they had no remorse for their actions.

You know nothing about what the Bible scriptures teach on such things. You just act on your feelings and emotions. You don't believe in God. That's all you should claim.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

PsyOps said:


> Do you do the same to people that are in your church that break the law - like incessantly speeding.  How about those that are have adulterous affairs, or abuse their wives or kids, lose their temper routinely, use foul language routinely, gamble their savings away… What about the pastor that takes from the plate to live an exorbitant lifestyle, when so many are struggling?  As long as we have the poor among us, there should be not one wealthy pastor.  I could on and on.
> 
> I have seen this more times than I can count.  Yet, Christians tend to get outraged with only certain sins and reject people that don’t fit that narrow prism.



Well said.


----------



## Gilligan

PsyOps said:


> So, the universe was always here.  Isn't that the same sort of thing we say about God?  How can that be?  I mean physicists keep running around talking about how one day the universe will collapse in on itself and time will end.



I hope that isn't too far out....I've got some bills piling up that I'd rather not have to pay.


----------



## Gilligan

PsyOps said:


> So, the universe was always here.



How do you know that?


----------



## Amused_despair

b23hqb said:


> Exactly how Jesus and his Word, the Bible, demonstrate the proper way handle church discipline in the church, and to excommunicate, if necessary, willing sin in the church. The homosexual or sinner would out themselves based on witnesses, and if they are not ashamed of their chosen lifestyle, they would not care about being "outed". Indeed, I would suggest they would celebrate it if they had no remorse for their actions.
> 
> You know nothing about what the Bible scriptures teach on such things. You just act on your feelings and emotions. You don't believe in God. That's all you should claim.



Wow, that is incredible, it is as if Jesus himself typed for you, you speak just I think he would, full of love for your neighbor and need to follow the instructions and guidance of Jesus.  So glad you are able to always be there to throw the first stone, to judge others without worry of being judged yourself.  Awesome.  You are a credit to your diety.


----------



## b23hqb

PsyOps said:


> Do you do the same to people that are in your church that break the law - like incessantly speeding.  How about those that are have adulterous affairs, or abuse their wives or kids, lose their temper routinely, use foul language routinely, gamble their savings away… What about the pastor that takes from the plate to live an exorbitant lifestyle, when so many are struggling?  As long as we have the poor among us, there should be not one wealthy pastor.  I could on and on.
> 
> I have seen this more times than I can count.  Yet, Christians tend to get outraged with only certain sins and reject people that don’t fit that narrow prism.



The pastor that steals would no longer be the pastor, but would still be allowed to remain in fellowship, (subsequent to any civil or criminal proceedings if required) if he wishes, as long as repentance is sincere. Speeding, floating stop signs, good luck with that. All the other things you mentioned are serious sin as well, can be fixed individually, and can be repented of. We have had a few meetings with people who have committed adultery. It is a very somber situation, and the first thing is re-establishing the husband/wife relationship if possible. If they no longer commit adultery, they have proven repentance and are welcom to stay. Same thing with excessive drinking, drugs, etc. Handle one on one at first, then one on three, then the whole church ONLY as a last resort. Fortunately, that has only happened twice in my 40 years of attending my meetings, and that is two times too many. No church wants to reach that position. Almost always, the involved persons repent and change their ways noticeably, before it gets that far.

The key is sincere repentance. People can tell - most have a good sense of others - if a person is truthful or lying. 

I believe you have stated in the past you "like to do the Christian thing" (my paraphrase) on your own. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. Obviously, if one does not fellowship with others, you will not have to deal with any of the mentioned problems in this thread. But you cannot deny what the Bible - God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Spirit - teaches on this very touchy and serious topic. 

If you deny, or choose to ignore because of personal feelings on such topics, biblical teachings, as written, you need to seriously reevaluate yourself in relation to God. I feel the need to reevaluate myself at times - I'm human and I'm a sinner - and am humbly forced to remind myself who God is, how much he loves us, and how much he loves His church. If you're a believing Christian, you have to, you must, give yourself up to God. That is his only demand for the cost of Jesus on the cross.

After all, it is God, and it is His way, and not ours.


----------



## PsyOps

Gilligan said:


> How do you know that?



My belief is that God created it.  It wasn't there and God created it.  Perhaps there was a previous universe, or several, that God created allowed to be destroyed then created this one.  Maybe we're one in a series of universes He created.  I'm like you, I have no clue about these things.  What I do know is we are here and, devoid of God, I have no explanation as to how all this stuff got here.  Science has yet to offer an viable alternative explanation.


----------



## Chuckt

seekeroftruth said:


> *Proverbs 6:16 There are six things the Lord hates,
> seven that are detestable to him:
> 17         haughty eyes,
> a lying tongue,
> hands that shed innocent blood,
> 18         a heart that devises wicked schemes,
> feet that are quick to rush into evil,
> 19         a false witness who pours out lies
> and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.*​



What would you do with the Apostle Paul who started riots in the community because of his faith?


2 Corinthians 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, *and take every thought captive to obey Christ*, 

Sounds like this Rabbi didn't follow your understanding of the Old Testament.

Question: "Does the Bible call Christians to defend the faith / argue for the faith?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/defend-faith.html

I'd rather offend a sinful man than offend a holy God.  This is why I'll never be a people pleaser and I'll never conform to the world to hide the truth in an effort to make less conflicts.

The one causing conflict is the ones with false doctrine.


----------



## PsyOps

b23hqb said:


> The pastor that steals would no longer be the pastor, but would still be allowed to remain in fellowship, (subsequent to any civil or criminal proceedings if required) if he wishes, as long as repentance is sincere.



I'm not going to suggest Joel Osteen is stealing the cash that flows into his ministry; but my knowledge of the Gospel tells me he should not accumulate such wealth when so many still remain in need.  I think Jesus would frown on this and rebuke it.  It seems he’s serving two masters to me.  Yet his church turns a blind eye to this hypocrisy.


----------



## GURPS

b23hqb said:


> The key is sincere repentance. People can tell - most have a good sense of others - if a person is truthful or lying.
> 
> I believe you have stated in the past you "like to do the Christian thing" (my paraphrase) on your own. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. Obviously, if one does not fellowship with others, you will not have to deal with any of the mentioned problems in this thread. But you cannot deny what the Bible - God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Spirit - teaches on this very touchy and serious topic.
> 
> If you deny, or choose to ignore because of personal feelings on such topics, biblical teachings, as written, you need to seriously reevaluate yourself in relation to God. I feel the need to reevaluate myself at times - I'm human and I'm a sinner - and am humbly forced to remind myself who God is, how much he loves us, and how much he loves His church. If you're a believing Christian, you have to, you must, give yourself up to God. That is his only demand for the cost of Jesus on the cross.
> 
> After all, it is God, and it is His way, and not ours.







which is the point I made here ..... http://forums.somd.com/threads/3042...e’-Your-Sinf?p=5584151&viewfull=1#post5584151


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

b23hqb said:


> The pastor that steals would no longer be the pastor, but would still be allowed to remain in fellowship, (subsequent to any civil or criminal proceedings if required) if he wishes, as long as repentance is sincere. Speeding, floating stop signs, good luck with that. All the other things you mentioned are serious sin as well, can be fixed individually, and can be repented of. We have had a few meetings with people who have committed adultery. It is a very somber situation, and the first thing is re-establishing the husband/wife relationship if possible. If they no longer commit adultery, they have proven repentance and are welcom to stay. Same thing with excessive drinking, drugs, etc. Handle one on one at first, then one on three, then the whole church ONLY as a last resort. Fortunately, that has only happened twice in my 40 years of attending my meetings, and that is two times too many. No church wants to reach that position. Almost always, the involved persons repent and change their ways noticeably, before it gets that far.
> 
> The key is sincere repentance. People can tell - most have a good sense of others - if a person is truthful or lying.
> 
> I believe you have stated in the past you "like to do the Christian thing" (my paraphrase) on your own. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. Obviously, if one does not fellowship with others, you will not have to deal with any of the mentioned problems in this thread. But you cannot deny what the Bible - God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Spirit - teaches on this very touchy and serious topic.
> 
> If you deny, or choose to ignore because of personal feelings on such topics, biblical teachings, as written, you need to seriously reevaluate yourself in relation to God. I feel the need to reevaluate myself at times - I'm human and I'm a sinner - and am humbly forced to remind myself who God is, how much he loves us, and how much he loves His church. If you're a believing Christian, you have to, you must, give yourself up to God. That is his only demand for the cost of Jesus on the cross.
> 
> After all, it is God, and it is His way, and not ours.



Christians sure spend a lot of time judging each other on behalf of God.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> I'm not going to suggest Joel Osteen is stealing the cash that flows into his ministry; but my knowledge of the Gospel tells me he should not accumulate such wealth when so many still remain in need.  I think Jesus would frown on this and rebuke it.  It seems he’s serving two masters to me.  Yet his church turns a blind eye to this hypocrisy.



My understanding is that the Osteens live comparatively modestly and give an awful lot of their wealth to charity.  He is highly successful at delivering a message that draws people in - this cynical atheist included.  We're not talking about Jim and Tammy Faye here.

I think his detractors miss the point.  Why wouldn't God want His children to lead comfortable lives?  Can you only be righteous and serve God from a hovel while you're starving?  The Bible just says it's difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, it doesn't say it's impossible.  Osteen has such a positive message - he literally spreads the Good News - and I'm sure that he has brought more people to God than some fire and brimstone you sinners suck and are going to burn in hell pulpit screamer.

And isn't that supposed to be the goal, bringing people to accept Jesus as their savior?  Be a shepherd and lead the people to God?  Jesus told Peter, "Feed my sheep," and I would say Joel Osteen is pretty successful at that.  So what's the beef?


----------



## vraiblonde

b23hqb said:


> You know nothing about what the Bible scriptures teach on such things.



_John, Chapter 8_

How about you do a little refresher course and come back to us with your thoughts.


----------



## Chuckt

vraiblonde said:


> My understanding is that the Osteens live comparatively modestly and give an awful lot of their wealth to charity.  He is highly successful at delivering a message that draws people in - this cynical atheist included.  We're not talking about Jim and Tammy Faye here.
> 
> I think his detractors miss the point.  Why wouldn't God want His children to lead comfortable lives?  Can you only be righteous and serve God from a hovel while you're starving?  The Bible just says it's difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, it doesn't say it's impossible.  Osteen has such a positive message - he literally spreads the Good News - and I'm sure that he has brought more people to God than some fire and brimstone you sinners suck and are going to burn in hell pulpit screamer.
> 
> And isn't that supposed to be the goal, bringing people to accept Jesus as their savior?  Be a shepherd and lead the people to God?  Jesus told Peter, "Feed my sheep," and I would say Joel Osteen is pretty successful at that.  So what's the beef?



Why wouldn't God want us to live comfortable lives?  Think about what you wrote:

Matthew 6:11	 	Give us this day our daily bread.

Jesus didn't say, "Give us our week's groceries" or "let us live comfortable" but Jesus makes you dependent upon God and having extra does not make you dependent upon God.  Therefore if Jesus made you comfortable, you would not be dependent upon God and maybe miss the kingdom of heaven.

It really is a danger to have people to come for the food that Jesus made instead of God or what he was saying:

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
http://biblehub.com/john/6-26.htm

The danger is thinking you are saved because you are blessed.  If someone pulled the fire alarm at a country club where they pay $40,000 for membership, I bet the nice dressed men there would trample over you to get out of a fire because blessings do not change human nature.  The reason God cursed the earth is so you would die because God didn't want you to live forever as a sinner and the wages of sin and death have not been repealed.

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
http://biblehub.com/john/16-33.htm

This Jesus wasn't rich because he had no place to lay his head so if you want to be rich, maybe you ought to consider what Jesus would do:

And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but *the Son of man hath not where to lay his head*.
http://biblehub.com/luke/9-58.htm

Peter wasn't rich:

Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
http://biblehub.com/acts/3-6.htm

The Teaching of Joel Osteen Pt. 1
http://www.equip.org/discernment-and-aberrant-teachings/the-teaching-of-joel-osteen-2/

Why I Called Out Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer
http://churchismessy.com/2013/08/05/why-i-called-out-joel-osteen-and-joyce-meyer/

The prosperity gospel is not Biblical and it is a bunch of garbage.  Why don't you go to the 10/40 window where your wife would be raped, you would be robbed, the water isn't drinkable, and you would probably come down with an infectious disease if you aren't killed by the people there.  If you want to be a missionary, why don't you do that?  Because it isn't prosperity.

That is why this prosperity gospel is nothing but garbage and the people who follow it are misled.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chuckt, how many people have you led to God?  How many sheep have you fed?

Because I'm pretty sure Joel Osteen has you beat.  You're just pissed because God is clearly giving Joel way more daily bread than He's giving you.  Perhaps that's His way of telling you you're not doing it right.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> My understanding is that the Osteens live comparatively modestly and give an awful lot of their wealth to charity.  He is highly successful at delivering a message that draws people in - this cynical atheist included.  We're not talking about Jim and Tammy Faye here.
> 
> I think his detractors miss the point.  Why wouldn't God want His children to lead comfortable lives?  Can you only be righteous and serve God from a hovel while you're starving?  The Bible just says it's difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, it doesn't say it's impossible.  Osteen has such a positive message - he literally spreads the Good News - and I'm sure that he has brought more people to God than some fire and brimstone you sinners suck and are going to burn in hell pulpit screamer.
> 
> And isn't that supposed to be the goal, bringing people to accept Jesus as their savior?  Be a shepherd and lead the people to God?  Jesus told Peter, "Feed my sheep," and I would say Joel Osteen is pretty successful at that.  So what's the beef?



I’m not suggesting God wants any of us to starve.  To the contrary, He wants the opposite.  My point is, my understanding of Christ’s stance on the wealthy and the poor reveals that believers shouldn’t accumulate exorbitant wealth so long as there poor that are in need.  And I wasn’t suggesting Osteen is going to hell for holding so much wealth.  My stance has always been that it’s not my place to come to such conclusions.

My larger point was how Christians call out sin and hold believers accountable to their repentance; not pick and choose what is more important to corner people on.  I don’t mean to come across as negative towards Osteen and his message.  I also admire people that achieve this level of success – ordinarily anyway.  But, there is a level of hypocrisy that bothers me in people preaching to others “sell everything you have, give it to the poor and come follow me” then don’t practice it.  I have always had a problem with big-money religion.  It cuts against the grain of the message; the example Christ set.


----------



## Chuckt

vraiblonde said:


> Chuckt, how many people have you led to God?  How many sheep have you fed?
> 
> Because I'm pretty sure Joel Osteen has you beat.  You're just pissed because God is clearly giving Joel way more daily bread than He's giving you.  Perhaps that's His way of telling you you're not doing it right.



The world belongs to the devil and he has more power than me but...

That doesn't make him right and there are plenty of ministers who are afraid to speak out against the richest church in America because the church is allegedly run like a corporation and if you spoke out, they have lawyers and I bet they have enough money to sue you and take everything that you have.

I think if you spoke out and one of these churches sued you, you might feel differently about them...  Just saying...


----------



## Bird Dog

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> Christians sure spend a lot of time judging each other on behalf of God.



.....and for a so called non-believer your sure spend a lot of time on the Religion forums. Looking for something?


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> But, there is a level of hypocrisy that bothers me in people preaching to others “sell everything you have, give it to the poor and come follow me” then don’t practice it.



I don't believe Joel Osteen has ever said that people should sell everything and give it to the poor.  Have you ever actually listened to one of his sermons?  He's very positive and motivational.  He doesn't tell you you're okay the way you are, he helps you want to be a better person.  I read all these accounts of hardcore fundies and the Left busting on him - he says this, he says that, blah blah blah - that is quite simply not true.  People who have never actually listened to him will believe it, though, never mind what he actually says.

Regardless, I believe Christ's message was more about God taking care of you, so don't worry 'bout a ting cuz every little ting gonna be alright.  Consider the lilies of the field.  Render unto Caesar.  Etc.  It's all about your soul, how you live your life, and what comes after physical death, not about your material possessions or what goes on here on Earth.  If Jesus said that everyone should sell their stuff and distribute their wealth among those who have none, that would make him a Communist, wouldn't it?  Which means that the only folks going to Heaven are the Chinese and Cubans.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chuckt said:


> if you spoke out, they have lawyers and I bet they have enough money to sue you and take everything that you have.



How many Bible passages do you want me to post to prove that the Bible says you're supposed to do the right thing and speak out against evil, regardless of earthly punishment?  Pick a number.  Any number.


----------



## vraiblonde

Bird Dog said:


> .....and for a so called non-believer your sure spend a lot of time on the Religion forums. Looking for something?



I'm a non-believer and I love religion.  I love religious discussions - only intelligent ones, though; you'll note I typically stay out of the "my God is better than your God" nonsense and blatant proselytizing.


----------



## Bird Dog

vraiblonde said:


> I don't believe Joel Osteen has ever said that people should sell everything and give it to the poor.  Have you ever actually listened to one of his sermons?  He's very positive and motivational.  He doesn't tell you you're okay the way you are, he helps you want to be a better person.  I read all these accounts of hardcore fundies and the Left busting on him - he says this, he says that, blah blah blah - that is quite simply not true.  People who have never actually listened to him will believe it, though, never mind what he actually says.
> 
> Regardless, I believe Christ's message was more about God taking care of you, so don't worry 'bout a ting cuz every little ting gonna be alright.  Consider the lilies of the field.  Render unto Caesar.  Etc.  It's all about your soul, how you live your life, and what comes after physical death, not about your material possessions or what goes on here on Earth.  If Jesus said that everyone should sell their stuff and distribute their wealth among those who have none, that would make him a Communist, wouldn't it?  Which means that the only folks going to Heaven are the Chinese and Cubans.



You're a lot more spiritual than you give yourself credit for.....that's a good thing


----------



## Bird Dog

vraiblonde said:


> I'm a non-believer and I love religion.  I love religious discussions - only intelligent ones, though; you'll note I typically stay out of the "my God is better than your God" nonsense and blatant proselytizing.



That wasn't meant for you......This was......You're a lot more spiritual than you give yourself credit for.....that's a good thing


----------



## Chuckt

vraiblonde said:


> Chuckt, how many people have you led to God?  How many sheep have you fed?
> 
> Because I'm pretty sure Joel Osteen has you beat.  You're just pissed because God is clearly giving Joel way more daily bread than He's giving you.  Perhaps that's His way of telling you you're not doing it right.



Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-32.htm

"Lest they faint in the way..."?  Isn't there a better way for Jesus to put that if He wanted people to be wealthy?

Matthew 6:19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:  
Matthew 6:20   But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:  

These ministers are reversing what Jesus said which is not to store up for yourself treasures upon the earth so if I'm not storing up treasures for myself then I'm not comfortable.

Matthew 6:31   Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?  

Isn't following these prosperity teachers just the opposite of Matthew 6:31?  You are worried about what you will have and desiring to be happy.  Worry is really the opposite of prayer.

You might want to answer me and tell me why God mentions these guys instead of the prosperity teachers:

Hebrews 11:36   And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:  
Hebrews 11:37   They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;  
Hebrews 11:38   (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.  
Hebrews 11:39   And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:  

Who has the better resurrection?

Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.  

So you want to be rich?  You might be last:

Mark 10:31   But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.  

If you are ahead of the line in riches here, you might be behind the line in riches in heaven.


----------



## b23hqb

vraiblonde said:


> _John, Chapter 8_
> 
> How about you do a little refresher course and come back to us with your thoughts.



What's your point on John 8?. The one point about being careful in judging others, casting the first stone? The rest of the discourse concerns the unbelievers who did not believe Him then, as now. All they wanted to do is rid the world of Him physically. Nothing has changed since then.

As usual, you cut and pasted one sentence in relation to a much broader comment or comments. Talk about putting something out of context. You would be a good reporter for the media.

I think you really to read that chapter and tell me what your thoughts are in relation to my post you cited.


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.
> 
> http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-32.htm
> 
> "Lest they faint in the way..."?  Isn't there a better way for Jesus to put that if He wanted people to be wealthy?
> 
> Matthew 6:19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
> Matthew 6:20   But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
> 
> These ministers are reversing what Jesus said which is not to store up for yourself treasures upon the earth so if I'm not storing up treasures for myself then I'm not comfortable.
> 
> Matthew 6:31   Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
> 
> Isn't following these prosperity teachers just the opposite of Matthew 6:31?  You are worried about what you will have and desiring to be happy.  Worry is really the opposite of prayer.
> 
> You might want to answer me and tell me why God mentions these guys instead of the prosperity teachers:
> 
> Hebrews 11:36   And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
> Hebrews 11:37   They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
> Hebrews 11:38   (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
> Hebrews 11:39   And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
> 
> Who has the better resurrection?
> 
> Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.
> 
> So you want to be rich?  You might be last:
> 
> Mark 10:31   But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.
> 
> If you are ahead of the line in riches here, you might be behind the line in riches in heaven.



You're still a squawking parrot and a false prophet.....no one listens to you


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> I'm a non-believer and I love religion.  I love religious discussions - only intelligent ones, though; you'll note I typically stay out of the "my God is better than your God" nonsense and blatant proselytizing.



But my God is better than your god


----------



## Gilligan

PsyOps said:


> devoid of God, I have no explanation as to how all this stuff got here.  Science has yet to offer an viable alternative explanation.



Fair enough. That, in a nutshell, is the fundamental underlying reason behind the formation of nearly all the religions that ever existed..past and present; to explain the yet unexplained...to attribute the unknown.


----------



## b23hqb

PsyOps said:


> I'm not going to suggest Joel Osteen is stealing the cash that flows into his ministry; but my knowledge of the Gospel tells me he should not accumulate such wealth when so many still remain in need.  I think Jesus would frown on this and rebuke it.  It seems he’s serving two masters to me.  Yet his church turns a blind eye to this hypocrisy.



For one thing, we don't know how rich or not rich he is. I personally do not subscribe to his line of fundraising, or everything is positive preaching. Apparently he did not want to follow his father's footsteps and be a preacher. He was really into TV producing and marketing products, which he does quite well. He, to me, is one of those "everything is a warm/fuzzy feeling when going to church and giving money, the more the better"  kind of guy, and rarely, if ever, talks on the most serious topics of salvation or hell.

There's nothing wrong with having money, even a lot of money, as long as that money is available for God's use when the time comes. If a good Bible-preaching church is doing well, there is no reason why the pastor(s) should not be doing decently as well. 

On the flip side of that, Doing well as a Christian can lead to a state of comfort that weakens us spiritually and in our walk with the Word. Christians must be careful to not let their/our/my spiritual muscles atrophy and become complacent. We get weak when we do not ask God where He wants us to go or do, and must be ready and willing to become uncomfortable to spread His Word.


----------



## b23hqb

Gilligan said:


> Fair enough. That, in a nutshell, is the fundamental underlying reason behind the formation of nearly all the religions that ever existed..past and present; to explain the yet unexplained...to attribute the unknown.




Way fair enough. I place my belief faith in God the Creator. To each their own.


----------



## vraiblonde

Bird Dog said:


> You're a lot more spiritual than you give yourself credit for.....that's a good thing



I'm highly spiritual; I just don't believe in God as a creator and separate from myself.


----------



## vraiblonde

b23hqb said:


> For one thing, we don't know how rich or not rich he is. I personally do not subscribe to his line of fundraising, or everything is positive preaching. Apparently he did not want to follow his father's footsteps and be a preacher. He was really into TV producing and marketing products, which he does quite well. He, to me, is one of those "everything is a warm/fuzzy feeling when going to church and giving money, the more the better"  kind of guy, and rarely, if ever, talks on the most serious topics of salvation or hell.



Then you have never actually watched one of his sermons.  He speaks constantly about salvation.  Like, constantly.  That's his whole thing:  God loves you and it's not too late.

You just want to think you're a preferred member of some little club, and that is simply not true.  The Bible says repeatedly that you are not special and the worst sinner born can become just as righteous as you.  In fact, repentant sinners are even better than those who've always trod the path:  _"But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found." Luke 15:32_

Now go read the John chapter I referenced and cast some more stones.


----------



## Chuckt

vraiblonde said:


> Then you have never actually watched one of his sermons.  He speaks constantly about salvation.  Like, constantly.  That's his whole thing:  God loves you and it's not too late.
> 
> You just want to think you're a preferred member of some little club, and that is simply not true.  The Bible says repeatedly that you are not special and the worst sinner born can become just as righteous as you.  In fact, repentant sinners are even better than those who've always trod the path:  _"But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found." Luke 15:32_
> 
> Now go read the John chapter I referenced and cast some more stones.



He is a motivational speaker and I need to see a sermon where he actually opens up his Bible because I've never seen one.

James 4:3   Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.  

If you are looking for prosperity, you are asking amiss because you want to consume it upon your own lusts.

Napoleon Hill is the father of the Prosperity gospel with his book "Think and grow rich".

Abraham was blessed with such wealth but God stopped blessing people like that because the people who were rich and should have known about Christ's coming are the rich dudes that crucified Jesus.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> He is a motivational speaker



And that is obviously good work...when you can get it. 

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/real-estate/07-04-10-after-move-to-river-oaks-joel-osteen-wants-to-sell-tanglewood-land-for-11-million/


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> And that is obviously good work...when you can get it.
> 
> http://houston.culturemap.com/news/real-estate/07-04-10-after-move-to-river-oaks-joel-osteen-wants-to-sell-tanglewood-land-for-11-million/



They pull in a lot of loot:

$600,000 stolen from Joel Osteen's megachurch


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> They pull in a lot of loot:



Looking at Osteen's success....something tells me that maybe yr doing it wrong.  Further...Osteen does not even make the Top 10!  Lookit the wallets on some of these selfless men of God.  Dang...

http://www.accra24.com/2015/03/2015-top-10-richest-pastors-in-world.html


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Bird Dog said:


> .....and for a so called non-believer your sure spend a lot of time on the Religion forums. Looking for something?



Unfortunately, religion is at the root of much of the world's wars, atrocities, and intolerance, so that makes it everybody's business, including atheists like myself.


----------



## vraiblonde

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> Unfortunately, religion is at the root of much of the world's wars, atrocities, and intolerance, so that makes it everybody's business, including atheists like myself.



God is a great excuse for enslaving and killing people.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> Looking at Osteen's success....something tells me that maybe yr doing it wrong.  Further...Osteen does not even make the Top 10!  Lookit the wallets on some of these selfless men of God.  Dang...
> 
> http://www.accra24.com/2015/03/2015-top-10-richest-pastors-in-world.html



I think they have Billy Graham's ministry figures attached to what he makes which is not $25 million.
I'm not sure if it is all accurate.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> I'm not sure if it is all accurate.



What's a 10 or 20 million error, give or take, right? When yr pulling down that kind of dough...


----------



## GURPS

Mathew 10

34“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> What's a 10 or 20 million error, give or take, right? When yr pulling down that kind of dough...



When a person is doing an expose against someone or a group of people, is accuracy a motive?

I remember them saying back in the day that he brought in a salary from the Billy Graham Association of only $80,000 a year which is not going to give you the figures that are on the internet.

Furthermore, how can his son make less than the twenty five million dollars when he should be making more according to inflation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-closer-to-1-million_55ca0384e4b0923c12be11af

It doesn't add up and the huffington post article isn't flattering but since it isn't flattering, I think you can be rational and then question if what you are reading is accurate or not.

The website implies that he is just taking his follower's money but his salary was $80,000 a year.  When you travel as a salesman, you have travel expenses, etc.

Did he write books?  I believe he has books out and because he has a large following, he probably made money on these endeavors but it isn't like I'm just forking over money to him because that is separate.  I can't separate which books are his personal books or which ones are his ministry books.  You would need an accountant for that sort of thing.


----------



## Bird Dog

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> Unfortunately, religion is at the root of much of the world's wars, atrocities, and intolerance, so that makes it everybody's business, including atheists like myself.


Deaths by atheists in the 20th Century, that's the past 100 years for you slow types.
Mao       78,000,000
Hitler      12,000,000
Stalin.       6,000,000
Pol Pot.      1,700,000

Show me where 100,000,000 people were killed in the name of religion in the past 100 years.
It's everyones business to worry about you atheist types.

I could go back 500 years and you atheist types are the winners there also.....


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> When a person is doing an expose against someone or a group of people, is accuracy a motive?
> 
> I remember them saying back in the day that he brought in a salary from the Billy Graham Association of only $80,000 a year which is not going to give you the figures that are on the internet.
> 
> Furthermore, how can his son make less than the twenty five million dollars when he should be making more according to inflation:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-closer-to-1-million_55ca0384e4b0923c12be11af
> 
> It doesn't add up and the huffington post article isn't flattering but since it isn't flattering, I think you can be rational and then question if what you are reading is accurate or not.
> 
> The website implies that he is just taking his follower's money but his salary was $80,000 a year.  When you travel as a salesman, you have travel expenses, etc.
> 
> Did he write books?  I believe he has books out and because he has a large following, he probably made money on these endeavors but it isn't like I'm just forking over money to him because that is separate.  I can't separate which books are his personal books or which ones are his ministry books.  You would need an accountant for that sort of thing.



All that wasted blathering.  Just to opine that you think Graham belongs in a different spot on that Top 10 list? Pssst..slow guy...there were 10 preachers on that list and Graham was only one of them. Lose focus much?


----------



## Gilligan

Bird Dog said:


> Deaths by atheists in the 20th Century, that's the past 100 years for you slow types.
> Mao       78,000,000
> Hitler      12,000,000
> Stalin.       6,000,000
> Pol Pot.      1,700,000
> 
> Show me where 100,000,000 people were killed in the name of religion in the past 100 years.
> It's everyones business to worry about you atheist types.
> 
> I could go back 500 years and you atheist types are the winners there also.....



Good score...true stuff.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> All that wasted blathering.  Just to opine that you think Graham belongs in a different spot on that Top 10 list? Pssst..slow guy...there were 10 preachers on that list and Graham was only one of them. Lose focus much?



I don't fully know all the other pastors (Nigeria) on that list so I speak to what I know.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> I don't fully know all the other pastors (Nigeria) on that list so I speak to what I know.



Proof that you didn't read it. Only some were Nigerian.


----------



## cheezgrits

vraiblonde said:


> Chuckt, how many people have you led to God?  How many sheep have you fed?
> 
> Because I'm pretty sure Joel Osteen has you beat.  You're just pissed because God is clearly giving Joel way more daily bread than He's giving you.  Perhaps that's His way of telling you you're not doing it right.



Three pages later and as usual, chuckie tee has yet to answer the question. lol


----------



## cheezgrits

Bird Dog said:


> Deaths by atheists in the 20th Century, that's the past 100 years for you slow types.
> Mao       78,000,000
> Hitler      12,000,000
> Stalin.       6,000,000
> Pol Pot.      1,700,000
> 
> Show me where 100,000,000 people were killed in the name of religion in the past 100 years.
> It's everyones business to worry about you atheist types.
> 
> I could go back 500 years and you atheist types are the winners there also.....



Past 100 years? Pretty narrow band of data compared to all of recorded history. Not denying the numbers, just saying it's easy to spin numbers when based on a narrow range. 

Hitler was a Christian and referred to himself as evangelical. Read Mein Kampf. German anti semetism was deeply rooted in the writings of Martin Luther who wrote such books as "the Jew and his Lies " Adolf Hitler declared his admiration for luther as well as his inspiration in Mein Kampf. Luther himself said that all jews should be erradicated which Nazi leaders used as one of their excuses for the final solution.

To be fair, however, I think the argument that many offer about the Crusades are flawed numbers.


----------



## PsyOps

cheezgrits said:


> Hitler was a Christian and referred to himself as evangelical. Read Mein Kampf. German anti semetism was deeply rooted in the writings of Martin Luther who wrote such books as "the Jew and his Lies " Adolf Hitler declared his admiration for luther as well as his inspiration in Mein Kampf. Luther himself said that all jews should be erradicated which Nazi leaders used as one of their excuses for the final solution.
> 
> To be fair, however, I think the argument that many offer about the Crusades are flawed numbers.



First, anyone can claim they are Christian.  Hitler often referred to himself as a Christian.  I’m not in the practice of judging one’s faith and their salvation; but I am comfortable believing Hitler was NOT a Christian.

Mein Kampf has dozens of references to “Christian” and “Christian Socialist Movement” and “Christian Socialist Party”, but Hitler makes no claim to himself in Mein Kampf to being a Christian.  And there are no references to “evangelical”, or any derivative, in Mein Kampf.  He only makes references to there being two “Christian denominations”.

It’s one thing to tie Hitler to Christianity only in the sense that he USED it to justify his sick agenda; as many have done so in global history.  But, you cannot tie Christianity to Hitler.  Anyone with any rational thought knows the Christian faith stands starkly against such evil.


----------



## Bird Dog

cheezgrits said:


> Past 100 years? Pretty narrow band of data compared to all of recorded history. Not denying the numbers, just saying it's easy to spin numbers when based on a narrow range.
> 
> Hitler was a Christian and referred to himself as evangelical. Read Mein Kampf. German anti semetism was deeply rooted in the writings of Martin Luther who wrote such books as "the Jew and his Lies " Adolf Hitler declared his admiration for luther as well as his inspiration in Mein Kampf. Luther himself said that all jews should be erradicated which Nazi leaders used as one of their excuses for the final solution.
> 
> To be fair, however, I think the argument that many offer about the Crusades are flawed numbers.



Let's go back to the 13th century 
Ghengis Khan 20,000,000 to 40,000,000


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Bird Dog said:


> Let's go back to the 13th century
> Ghengis Khan 20,000,000 to 40,000,000



What is the point you are attempting to make? You questioned why an atheist would be interested in the Religion forum, and I pointed out that it's unfortunate that Religion has an impact on ALL people regardless of their belief in God. Wars have been waged and are being waged because of religious ideology. Questioning whether historically brutal dictators were religious or not is irrelevant.


----------



## PsyOps

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> What is the point you are attempting to make? You questioned why an atheist would be interested in the Religion forum, and I pointed out that it's unfortunate that Religion has an impact on ALL people regardless of their belief in God. Wars have been waged and are being waged because of religious ideology. Questioning whether historically brutal dictators were religious or not is irrelevant.



But you can’t spout this myopic view of ‘evil’ in this world as only existing within religion, when you know full-well it’s spread pretty evenly among all groups of people.  And you post this with some sort of inference that what atheists do occurs in a vacuum.  All of our behavior impacts everyone to some degree.  Atheists are often trying to shut religion – particularly Christians – up.  Are you going to pretend this has no impact on society as a whole?  We are a country, unlike any other, that FIRST AND FOREMOST recognizes the FREE PRACTICE of religion in our constitution.  This plays to the importance our founders placed on religion; regardless of what evils might have occurred under that banner.  This is obviously going to have an impact on every person in our country.  The fact that you don’t like that is something you need to take up in the amendment process.

So, to get back to the OP, in our RIGHT to freely practice our faith, Christians are not required to go outside their faith and be FORCED to accept those that engage in lifestyles contrary to their faith.  Again, if you don’t like this, you need to address this in the amendment process.


----------



## Bird Dog

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> What is the point you are attempting to make? You questioned why an atheist would be interested in the Religion forum, and I pointed out that it's unfortunate that Religion has an impact on ALL people regardless of their belief in God. Wars have been waged and are being waged because of religious ideology. Questioning whether historically brutal dictators were religious or not is irrelevant.



Just answering your statement.....

Quote Originally Posted by CleanTheSlateInSMC  View Post
Unfortunately, religion is at the root of much of the world's wars, atrocities, and intolerance, so that makes it everybody's business, including atheists like myself.

I'm just informing you that you are wrong.....


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Bird Dog said:


> Just answering your statement.....
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by CleanTheSlateInSMC  View Post
> Unfortunately, religion is at the root of much of the world's wars, atrocities, and intolerance, so that makes it everybody's business, including atheists like myself.
> 
> I'm just informing you that you are wrong.....



So you disagree that religion is at the root of much of the worlds wars, atrocities, and intolerance?


----------



## PsyOps

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> So you disagree that religion is at the root of much of the worlds wars, atrocities, and intolerance?



Here's a more valid question... Were these "wars, atrocities, and intolerance" committed in the name of these religions, or was it actually the true doctrine of these religions that these "wars, atrocities, and intolerance" were committed?  Do you feel what today's terrorists are doing is truly representative of the Islamic faith?  Do you believe what Hitler did represents the Christian faith?


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> Do you believe what Hitler did represents the Christian faith?



Ever read the Old Testament?


----------



## Gilligan

PsyOps said:


> Do you feel what today's terrorists are doing is truly representative of the Islamic faith?



It matters not one wit what I think or you think. THEY believe that what they are doing is truly representative of their Islamic faith, and that is all that actually does matter.


----------



## Bird Dog

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> So you disagree that religion is at the root of much of the worlds wars, atrocities, and intolerance?



I don't disagree, I know it is totally not so.
WWI, WWII, our Civil War, Rwanda, Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., no Religion involved


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> Ever read the Old Testament?



Well, since you are going to insult me... If you knew anything about the bible at all, you'd know the OT is pre-Christian.  

Care to answer the question?  You really believe the genocide of a race of people is indicative of the Christian faith?


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> Proof that you didn't read it. Only some were Nigerian.



Just because someone has a website doesn't mean the information contained therein is true or worthy of my time and effort.

I read it enough to know they were confused on Billy Graham.  Did you?


----------



## Chuckt

PsyOps said:


> Well, since you are going to insult me... If you knew anything about the bible at all, you'd know the OT is pre-Christian.
> 
> Care to answer the question?  You really believe the genocide of a race of people is indicative of the Christian faith?



No.  The Old Testament has the same God and the same Christ and they were looking forward to the cross while we are looking back at the cross.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> Just because someone has a website doesn't mean the information contained therein is true or worthy of my time and effort.



   <------ I had you pegged for one of those a long time ago. You don't disappoint.


----------



## Chuckt

PsyOps said:


> Here's a more valid question... Were these "wars, atrocities, and intolerance" committed in the name of these religions, or was it actually the true doctrine of these religions that these "wars, atrocities, and intolerance" were committed?  Do you feel what today's terrorists are doing is truly representative of the Islamic faith?  Do you believe what Hitler did represents the Christian faith?



I think many Catholics left their faith on the shore once they got on ships and went to other countries.  You can do that when your religion is in name only.

I'm amazed at other countries.  They put themselves down as "Christian" meaning "Catholic" but a lot of people in other countries do that but are atheists and don't follow any organized religion or faith.


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> Just because someone has a website doesn't mean the information contained therein is true or worthy of my time and effort.
> 
> I read it enough to know they were confused on Billy Graham.  Did you?



We keep forgetting.....You're a genius........


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> I think many Catholics left their faith on the shore once they got on ships and went to other countries.  You can do that when your religion is in name only.
> 
> I'm amazed at other countries.  They put themselves down as "Christian" meaning "Catholic" but a lot of people in other countries do that but are atheists and don't follow any organized religion or faith.



Squawwwwkkkk. Catholics are bad, Catholics are bad.......Squawwwk...


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> I'm amazed at other countries.  They put themselves down as "Christian" meaning "Catholic" but a lot of people in other countries do that but are atheists and don't follow any organized religion or faith.



Say..you spent much time in the PI, Chuckee?...or about any Central American country?...


----------



## Chuckt

Bird Dog said:


> We keep forgetting.....You're a genius........



No.  Just college educated.
Who did the peer review for the website?  Do you have any names?  If it isn't peer reviewed then what standards did you or anyone here use to determine if the material on said website is true?  Is the work credentialed?  Many people believe in something but it is based on nothing.  I wonder what would happen if I went back and spell checked their website...

I use academic material for my Bible studies.  I sometimes send my material out to people who know Greek to determine if they agree or not with what I write.

In college, some of my professors wanted us to watch the debates on television and to catch them lying which isn't hard because the average American tells 200 lies a day.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> No.  Just college educated.
> .



Wow.   I'm impressed.


----------



## Gilligan

Just for Chuckee...

http://www.fullnetworth.com/top-10-richest-pastors-in-the-world/

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/africa/pastors-rich-list-who-the-top-9-are-and-how-they-rose-to-prominence

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/

http://www.herald.co.zw/worlds-richest-pastors/


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> No.  Just college educated.
> Who did the peer review for the website?



Wow, I just fainted.....
I don't copy and paste websites like you...
.....and you are still just a false prophet and a squawking parrot and I don't need the inter web to know that. You only need to read your babble.....


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> Just for Chuckee...
> 
> http://www.fullnetworth.com/top-10-richest-pastors-in-the-world/
> 
> http://www.straitstimes.com/world/africa/pastors-rich-list-who-the-top-9-are-and-how-they-rose-to-prominence
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/
> 
> http://www.herald.co.zw/worlds-richest-pastors/



The Forbes site didn't display an article.

The websites you choose have no documentation.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> The websites you choose have no documentation.



  There it is ...again.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chuckt said:


> Just because someone has a website doesn't mean the information contained therein is true or worthy of my time and effort.



Who did the peer review for the Bible? Do you have any names? If it isn't peer reviewed then what standards did you or anyone here use to determine if the material in said Bible is true? Is the work credentialed? Many people believe in something but it is based on nothing.


----------



## Chuckt

vraiblonde said:


> Who did the peer review for the Bible? Do you have any names? If it isn't peer reviewed then what standards did you or anyone here use to determine if the material in said Bible is true? Is the work credentialed? Many people believe in something but it is based on nothing.



Yes, Peter said the things that Paul wrote were scripture:

2 Peter 3:16   As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.  

The scriptures are affirmed by Churches in their statements of faith so they are peer reviewed.

It is a living book.
There are testimonies of changed lives.
There is historical and archaeological evidence.  Dr. William Albright said the account of the cities in Genesis is the most accurate but I will have to be more specific later.

Best selling book of non-fiction



> Although it is impossible to obtain exact figures, there is little doubt that the Bible is the worlds best-selling and most widely distributed book. A survey by the Bible Society concluded that around 2.5 billion copies were printed between 1815 and 1975, but more recent estimates put the number at more than 5 billion.



http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-book-of-non-fiction/

The Prophecies have come to pass and future ones will come to pass.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chuckt said:


> Yes, Peter said the things that Paul wrote were scripture:



So the Bible is the peer review for the Bible? 

Perhaps you don't understand what exactly a peer review is.


----------



## Gilligan

vraiblonde said:


> Perhaps you don't understand what exactly a peer review is.



Ya think???


----------



## b23hqb

What was this thread about anyway before it was hijacked by the bash chuckt crowd?


----------



## Gilligan

b23hqb said:


> the bash chuckt crowd?



It's a growing movement...as it should be.


----------



## b23hqb

Gilligan said:


> It's a growing movement...as it should be.



Why? Do you have something personal against believers? And it really looks personal, not analytical. It is not debate or constructive criticism, even criticism. It is almost flat out disdain for a person that stands by the Bible and what it teaches.

If you want to argue a theological point, fine - perfectly acceptable and reasonable. Just be able to refute his arguments with more than just a casual reference to a generally well known, generic feel good verse or passage. If you don't like the message, fine as well.  Just make a point that is not purely character assassination. That would be the civilized thing to do.

Or just ignore chuckt altogether.

That is all.


----------



## Chuckt

vraiblonde said:


> So the Bible is the peer review for the Bible?
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand what exactly a peer review is.



You have an argument and we have an experience that God is real:



> X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.(z)



The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) by Various | Reformed Theology Articles at Ligonier.org

So someone is going to be ignorant and say that Christians are having a mass mental illness that all agree at different times but another study said that there was no brain activity when there was an MRI scan while Christians were speaking in tongues so if there was no mental activity then the conclusion is that:

For he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God...
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/14-2.htm

The paper didn't call it mental illness because there is no brain activity:



> Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania took brain images of five women while they spoke in tongues and found that their frontal lobes — the thinking, willful part of the brain through which people control what they do — were relatively quiet, as were the language centers. The regions involved in maintaining self-consciousness were active. The women were not in blind trances, and it was unclear which region was driving the behavior.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html?_r=0

The way God looks at it is, you are without excuse when you meet God in heaven:

Romans 1:20	 	For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

There is a scripture I've been looking for but basically since God sent two witnesses into the world, you are without excuse.

God is here.  God can be found.  I remember listening to older women when I wasn't even a teen and they heard from God but they were not going to make a case for it because they knew what people would say.  They knew people would be ashamed at God or any story testifying to God so they kept it to themselves or those who would listen.

The prophecies that Israel would become a nation again happened in some of our lifetimes.  Sir Robert Anderson wrote a book that is really hard to understand and he was knighted for his work but he basically put in writing the day that Jesus Christ came using a lot of math using the Bible.

So yeah, the Bible is peer reviewed but someone like you is not going to do that kind of math because you think you know better but you don't know.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> You have an argument and we have an experience that God is real:
> 
> 
> 
> The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) by Various | Reformed Theology Articles at Ligonier.org
> 
> So someone is going to be ignorant and say that Christians are having a mass mental illness that all agree at different times but another study said that there was no brain activity when there was an MRI scan while Christians were speaking in tongues so if there was no mental activity then the conclusion is that:
> 
> For he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God...
> http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/14-2.htm
> 
> The paper didn't call it mental illness because there is no brain activity:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html?_r=0
> 
> The way God looks at it is, you are without excuse when you meet God in heaven:
> 
> Romans 1:20	 	For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> There is a scripture I've been looking for but basically since God sent two witnesses into the world, you are without excuse.
> 
> God is here.  God can be found.  I remember listening to older women when I wasn't even a teen and they heard from God but they were not going to make a case for it because they knew what people would say.  They knew people would be ashamed at God or any story testifying to God so they kept it to themselves or those who would listen.
> 
> The prophecies that Israel would become a nation again happened in some of our lifetimes.  Sir Robert Anderson wrote a book that is really hard to understand and he was knighted for his work but he basically put in writing the day that Jesus Christ came using a lot of math using the Bible.
> 
> So yeah, the Bible is peer reviewed but someone like you is not going to do that kind of math because you think you know better but you don't know.



All of that typing for absolutely no gain. Love it. Rock on, Chuckee..


----------



## Gilligan

b23hqb said:


> Why? Do you have something personal against believers? And it really looks personal, not analytical. It is not debate or constructive criticism, even criticism. It is almost flat out disdain for a person that stands by the Bible and what it teaches.
> 
> If you want to argue a theological point, fine - perfectly acceptable and reasonable. Just be able to refute his arguments with more than just a casual reference to a generally well known, generic feel good verse or passage. If you don't like the message, fine as well.  Just make a point that is not purely character assassination. That would be the civilized thing to do.
> 
> Or just ignore chuckt altogether.
> 
> That is all.



Frankly??..I utterly despise people like ole Chuck. How's that?


----------



## Amused_despair

b23hqb said:


> Why? Do you have something personal against believers? And it really looks personal, not analytical. It is not debate or constructive criticism, even criticism. It is almost flat out disdain for a person that stands by the Bible and what it teaches.
> 
> If you want to argue a theological point, fine - perfectly acceptable and reasonable. Just be able to refute his arguments with more than just a casual reference to a generally well known, generic feel good verse or passage. If you don't like the message, fine as well.  Just make a point that is not purely character assassination. That would be the civilized thing to do.
> 
> Or just ignore chuckt altogether.
> 
> That is all.



B23hqb championing chuckt.  It is like hatred championing ignorance.  Two people who are so unlike Jesus as is possible and yet claim to be Christians.  Gandhi was more Christ-like then you two hateful hypocrites.  You feed off of your hate of those who do not walk in goose-step with you like you were Sith enmeshed in the Dark Side. Enjoy your  hate, let it feed your hypocrisy.


----------



## b23hqb

Gilligan said:


> Frankly??..I utterly despise people like ole Chuck. How's that?



OK. Your right. But an explanation of why you despise someone you probably have never met would be forthcoming, don't you think?

Is chuckt just pissing you off because you don't want to hear what he says, or refuse to even think about what he says, or because what he says hits you where you do not want to be hit?

Any reasonable person would answer to those questions. 

Are you druids that mean and unable to contest those you disagree with?

Even Gilligan can come up an answer for those questions. If you can't stand dude, just ignore him unless you 'splain why, Luussy.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> I think many Catholics left their faith on the shore once they got on ships and went to other countries.  You can do that when your religion is in name only.
> 
> I'm amazed at other countries.  They put themselves down as "Christian" meaning "Catholic" but a lot of people in other countries do that but are atheists and don't follow any organized religion or faith.



There you go again, you just HAVE to mention Catholics, and for no logical purpose aside from your bigoted obsession. As I said in another thread, your own faith is solely dependent upon Catholicism just like the Satanists.



b23hqb said:


> What was this thread about anyway before it was hijacked by the bash chuckt crowd?



It was hijacked long before that, silly.



b23hqb said:


> Why? Do you have something personal against believers? And it really looks personal, not analytical. It is not debate or constructive criticism, even criticism. It is almost flat out disdain for a person that stands by the Bible and what it teaches.



I don't have anything against believers. I have something against chuckt. I, as everyone else, has a right to discern his character by what he presents to us here on this forum. If you don't like how the majority of people are viewing him, then you may want to take a second look at your champion.



b23hqb said:


> If you want to argue a theological point, fine - perfectly acceptable and reasonable. Just be able to refute his arguments with more than just a casual reference to a generally well known, generic feel good verse or passage. If you don't like the message, fine as well.  Just make a point that is not purely character assassination. That would be the civilized thing to do.



Wow, that's funny because chuck is notorious for taking scripture passages out of context. People's character gets assassinated when they knowingly and willfully continue in their errors. You know how you don't have any problem throwing someone out of the church if they continue in their sin? Well, this is kind of the same thing. Chuck has certain ideas about things that have been proven wrong time and again yet he still persists. In my view, that denotes an evil intention and I will in turn assassinate that character.



b23hqb said:


> Is chuckt just pissing you off because you don't want to hear what he says, or refuse to even think about what he says, or because what he says hits you where you do not want to be hit?



There's another option -- because he's a self-righteous, hypocritical, bloviating, bigoted, flat-out liar.




Here's a question for you. Why are you so supportive of someone like that?


----------



## GURPS

b23hqb said:


> Even Gilligan can come up an answer for those questions.








dude you quoted Gilligan


----------



## Gilligan

b23hqb said:


> OK. Your right. But an explanation of why you despise someone you probably have never met would be forthcoming, don't you think?




I simply despise the type of individual that Chuckt obviously personifies.  Self-righteous, holier-than-thou, indoctrinated, highly judgmental, narrow-minded ...the list is a long one.  And I also like to challenge their silliness...


----------



## Amused_despair

Chuckt is a hypocrite, I don't like hypocrites.  Don't be a hypocrite.


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> There you go again, you just HAVE to mention Catholics, and for no logical purpose aside from your bigoted obsession. As I said in another thread, your own faith is solely dependent upon Catholicism just like the Satanists.
> 
> 
> 
> It was hijacked long before that, silly.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything against believers. I have something against chuckt. I, as everyone else, has a right to discern his character by what he presents to us here on this forum. If you don't like how the majority of people are viewing him, then you may want to take a second look at your champion.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's funny because chuck is notorious for taking scripture passages out of context. People's character gets assassinated when they knowingly and willfully continue in their errors. You know how you don't have any problem throwing someone out of the church if they continue in their sin? Well, this is kind of the same thing. Chuck has certain ideas about things that have been proven wrong time and again yet he still persists. In my view, that denotes an evil intention and I will in turn assassinate that character.
> 
> 
> 
> There's another option -- because he's a self-righteous, hypocritical, bloviating, bigoted, flat-out liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question for you. Why are you so supportive of someone like that?



Simply because he preaches the Bible, accurately, and that is what really stings many. I've never met him, or you, or most posters on this site. I really try to avoid calling anyone names, outside of designations that describe their takes. I call chuckt what he demonstrates to be - a Christian preaching the Bible and he sticks to his guns, agree or disagree. I call you a catholic that will disagree with this protestant on most theological positions - just like your assertion the he takes many scriptures out of context, which I disagree with you on.

But it is what it is.

Meanwhile, let's get back to the OP, and I would like to hear input from our resident catholics on church discipline on sin in the church, specifically in this case, homosexuality. Misfit started a thread a few days ago that has had very little reaction, but is the exact same topic: "Gay priest says 'Church makes gay lives hell' 

I think the rcc reacted properly in asserting "church discipline" in ousting the offender, immediately dismissing him from his Vatican position, and suspended from his diocese in Poland as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/w...he-church-in-letter-to-pope-francis.html?_r=0

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34654581    (the OP link)

The same holds for the protestant denominations who uphold scriptual church discipline.

What say ye, o catholic fellow posters?


----------



## GURPS

b23hqb said:


> Meanwhile, let's get back to the OP, and I would like to hear input from our resident catholics on church discipline on sin in the church, specifically in this case, homosexuality. Misfit started a thread a few days ago that has had very little reaction, but is the exact same topic: "Gay priest says 'Church makes gay lives hell'
> 
> I think the rcc reacted properly in asserting "church discipline" in ousting the offender, immediately dismissing him from his Vatican position, and suspended from his diocese in Poland as well.





IMHO - the Church did the right thing, I believe had this person been involved with a woman, the same actions would have taken place ... 

I would guess the gay was tossed out because he refused to put aside his sinful life style ... 



I made my point pages ago ..... 
brother are you willing to give up your sinful lifestyle and be saved ... 

yes, come on in, lets pray for forgiveness and strength to resist temptation

no ... there is the door, we will be praying for your redemption and return 



do Christians in any Church Sin 
... of course they do, do they necessity get up in the morning and say 
- I'm going to ruin my marriage this month and start an affair with the office slut No


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> Simply because he preaches the Bible, accurately, and that is what really stings many.



That may be why you support him, but the term accurate is debatable when it comes to you and chuck's interpretations. Neither you nor him have any authority to say what is accurate or not so there is no sting. If you ask me it's all quite retarded on your parts to continually throw out the it is or is not biblical stuff without first adding "IN MY OPINION", but it is what it is, and you are what you are, and that's why people think you're hypocrites.




b23hqb said:


> Meanwhile, let's get back to the OP, and I would like to hear input from our resident catholics on church discipline on sin in the church, specifically in this case, homosexuality. Misfit started a thread a few days ago that has had very little reaction, but is the exact same topic: "Gay priest says 'Church makes gay lives hell'
> 
> I think the rcc reacted properly in asserting "church discipline" in ousting the offender, immediately dismissing him from his Vatican position, and suspended from his diocese in Poland as well.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/w...he-church-in-letter-to-pope-francis.html?_r=0
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34654581    (the OP link)
> 
> The same holds for the protestant denominations who uphold scriptual church discipline.
> 
> What say ye, o catholic fellow posters?



He was a priest who was a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of all things, who took vows and broke them, and then publically flaunted it. At that point, he got what he deserved. It's the same with other figures in history. Personally, I don't feel like I'm in a position to make the judgments of whether someone like himself should remain in the church or not because that isn't my calling.


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> That may be why you support him, but the term accurate is debatable when it comes to you and chuck's interpretations. Neither you nor him have any authority to say what is accurate or not so there is no sting. If you ask me it's all quite retarded on your parts to continually throw out the it is or is not biblical stuff without first adding "IN MY OPINION", but it is what it is, and you are what you are, and that's why people think you're hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was a priest who was a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of all things, who took vows and broke them, and then publically flaunted it. At that point, he got what he deserved. It's the same with other figures in history. Personally, I don't feel like I'm in a position to make the judgments of whether someone like himself should remain in the church or not because that isn't my calling.



Why should you feel judgmental about a liar and hypocrite leader in your church? Are you, as a member of the rcc, not required to keep an eye on your leaders and call them out on the carpet when you see them doing grievous harm, not only to the reputation and standing of your church beliefs, but to themselves, as well as you? 

Thanks for answering. You are the first catholic to respond to the OP question/statement itself.


----------



## Chuckt

b23hqb said:


> Why should you feel judgmental about a liar and hypocrite leader in your church? Are you, as a member of the rcc, not required to keep an eye on your leaders and call them out on the carpet when you see them doing grievous harm, not only to the reputation and standing of your church beliefs, but to themselves, as well as you?
> 
> Thanks for answering. You are the first catholic to respond to the OP question/statement itself.



The victims had a hard time getting anywhere with the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church's response was that priests don't do anything wrong so the victims had to take their case to court, a Church official went to jail and now there are new laws about it.


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> Why should you feel judgmental about a liar and hypocrite leader in your church? Are you, as a member of the rcc, not required to keep an eye on your leaders and call them out on the carpet when you see them doing grievous harm, not only to the reputation and standing of your church beliefs, but to themselves, as well as you?
> 
> Thanks for answering. You are the first catholic to respond to the OP question/statement itself.



It is a judment, and making such judments is not my calling. I don't take it upon myself to watch others like a hawk in order to say whether or not they are a Christian or if they can continue to participate in the community.. If someone is being harmed then it's a different story but that then becomes a secular legal matter and not a religious one. 



Chuckt said:


> The victims had a hard time getting anywhere with the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church's response was that priests don't do anything wrong so the victims had to take their case to court, a Church official I
> went to jail and now there are new laws about it.



Did you even read the OP?


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> It is a judment, and making such judments is not my calling. I don't take it upon myself to watch others like a hawk in order to say whether or not they are a Christian or if they can continue to participate in the community.. If someone is being harmed then it's a different story but that then becomes a secular legal matter and not a religious one.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even read the OP?



It is your calling as a "Christian" to look for and judge those that do not follow the faith. If you're not, you are slacking on your personal responsibilities to your faith, and placing what could be undo burdens or sufferings by others. Matt 7:15, 2 & 3 John, along with Jude, especially, call for it. 

So you would call something like this "harmless" to the church? I wouldn't. It is our job to be vigilant of each other, wary of, and watch for, deceivers in whatever church you belong to. Dude former priest was a deceiver and liar for a very long, long time. I hate to say this, but if that guy had been costuming as a conservative protestant in a very large church, or in any church, really, this would be headlines around the country for days. Here, not much coverage at all, and most seems to be from the UK and New Zealand.

Good luck with the upcoming synod.


----------



## Chuckt

GURPS said:


> *No, Christianity Should Not ‘Welcome’ or ‘Include’ Your Sinful Lifestyle*
> 
> 
> I got this email a few days ago insisting Christians need to be more “inclusive” of open homosexuals. It’s a popular notion these days, so I thought I’d share this with you and respond here publicly:



I'm married and we're looking for a new Church.  Where do you suppose I should go?  All Churches are run by sinful people including the Catholic church so where would I go that it would be perfect?

Since there isn't a perfect church, they are all run by sinful people so why should I welcome them other than God says we should go to Church?


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Chuckt  View Post
> The victims had a hard time getting anywhere with the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church's response was that priests don't do anything wrong so the victims had to take their case to court, a Church official I
> went to jail and now there are new laws about it.
> Did you even read the OP?



Yes, I did.

You also chose an emoticon that is called a but kick.

An overseer shouldn't be a a striker:

Titus 1:7	 	For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, *no striker*, not given to filthy lucre;

So lets say you aren't a striker for the sake of argument:

There is still a judgment of God for those who take pleasure in it and you took enough pleasure to post the emoticon.

Romans 1:32	 	Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> It is your calling as a "Christian" to look for and judge those that do not follow the faith. If you're not, you are slacking on your personal responsibilities to your faith, and placing what could be undo burdens or sufferings by others. Matt 7:15, 2 & 3 John, along with Jude, especially, call for it.
> 
> So you would call something like this "harmless" to the church? I wouldn't. It is our job to be vigilant of each other, wary of, and watch for, deceivers in whatever church you belong to. Dude former priest was a deceiver and liar for a very long, long time. I hate to say this, but if that guy had been costuming as a conservative protestant in a very large church, or in any church, really, this would be headlines around the country for days. Here, not much coverage at all, and most seems to be from the UK and New Zealand.
> 
> Good luck with the upcoming synod.



1. It is for me to discern my calling, not you.
2. Don't put words in my mouth.
3. How about I be vigilant in continually calling you a heretic because you are deceiving the people about Christian doctrine, which is only your own wishful thinking. You've been lying to people far longer than that priest and promote an insidiously evil and self-serving practice. 

Be careful what you ask for.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> Yes, I did.
> 
> You also chose an emoticon that is called a but kick.
> 
> An overseer shouldn't be a a striker:
> 
> Titus 1:7	 	For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, *no striker*, not given to filthy lucre;
> 
> So lets say you aren't a striker for the sake of argument:
> 
> There is still a judgment of God for those who take pleasure in it and you took enough pleasure to post the emoticon.
> 
> Romans 1:32	 	Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.



1. I'm not a bishop and neither are you. 
2. Yes, it was a butt kick and I suspect you will be seeing a lot more of it. 
3. I'll take my chances with God's judment of me for having used an internet emoticon that hurt your little feelings.


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> 1. I'm not a bishop and neither are you.
> 2. Yes, it was a butt kick and I suspect you will be seeing a lot more of it.
> 3. I'll take my chances with God's judment of me for having used an internet emoticon that hurt your little feelings.



My feelings are not hurt but I suspect you are a reprobate because you don't have an excuse to claim yourself a Christian and act like that towards people.

2 Corinthians 13:5	 	Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates (g5100 τις tis)?




> not standing the test, not approved
> 
> properly used of metals and coins
> 
> that which does not prove itself such as it ought
> 
> unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate



http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G96&t=KJV

Another definition is:



> of a bad nature
> 
> not such as it ought to be
> 
> of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting
> 
> base, wrong, wicked
> 
> troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful



http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2556&t=KJV



> Bad:
> 
> indicates the lack in a person or thing of those qualities which should be possessed; it means "bad in character"
> (a) morally, by way of thinking, feeling or acting, e.g., Mar 7:21, "thoughts;" 1Cr 15:33, "company;" Col 3:5, "desire;" 1Ti 6:10, "all kinds of evil;" 1Pe 3:9, "evil for evil;"
> 
> (b) in the sense of what is injurious or baneful, e.g., the tongue as "a restless evil," Jam 3:8; "evil beasts," Tts 1:12; "harm," Act 16:28; once it is translated "bad," 2Cr 5:10. It is the opposite of agathos, "good."
> See EVIL, HARM, ILL, NOISOME, WICKED.



http://www.blbclassic.org/Search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?type=getTopic&Topic=VT0000207

Matthew 12:33	¶	Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Luke 3:9	 	And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> R1 was mean to me for acting like an idiot again!


If I'm a reprobate for cyber butt kicking you, then surely you are for continually spreading lies about the Church Jesus founded. 

I'll take my fruit over yours any day.


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> 1. It is for me to discern my calling, not you.
> 2. Don't put words in my mouth.
> 3. How about I be vigilant in continually calling you a heretic because you are deceiving the people about Christian doctrine, which is only your own wishful thinking. You've been lying to people far longer than that priest and promote an insidiously evil and self-serving practice.
> 
> Be careful what you ask for.



Ah, the ire of a non-biblical catholic scorned. Again, looking forward to the happenings in the old upcoming synod. Let's see how many of those puppets in attendance have the moral and biblical courage to break those strings being orchestrated from the papal palace, and stand up for Christian, not PC catholic principles..

It is nice to know that catholics don't have to look into themselves for answers - all they have to do is look to Rome for the answers.


----------



## Amused_despair

b23hqb said:


> Ah, the ire of a non-biblical catholic scorned. Again, looking forward to the happenings in the old upcoming synod. Let's see how many of those puppets in attendance have the moral and biblical courage to break those strings being orchestrated from the papal palace, and stand up for Christian, not PC catholic principles..
> 
> It is nice to know that catholics don't have to look into themselves for answers - all they have to do is look to Rome for the answers.



Yesssss, let the hate flow through you, yessss.


----------



## onel0126

You can tell the difference between authentic Protestant Christians and those of the B23 and Chuck ilk. Ever notice they are so obsessed about doing the opposite of ANYTHING Catholic? It's insecurity and is indeed by design. B23's church doesn't even have a leader--show me that in scripture! And FYI, the Synod has been over. And the fact that you are rooting for some heretical change to come out of it speaks volumes.


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> Ah, the ire of a non-biblical catholic scorned.



Don't flatter yourself. You haven't seen my "ire", nor have I been "scorned".



b23hqb said:


> Again, looking forward to the happenings in the old upcoming synod. Let's see how many of those puppets in attendance have the moral and biblical courage to break those strings being orchestrated from the papal palace, and stand up for Christian, not PC catholic principles..



"Biblical courage"? That's not even a biblical term, you made that up. If it wasn't for those pesky Catholics you wouldn't even have a bible to make stuff up about.



b23hqb said:


> It is nice to know that catholics don't have to look into themselves for answers - all they have to do is look to Rome for the answers.



Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't; it depends. For example, I can look to myself and know that I shouldn't listen to you because you follow a doctrine that says bible only when the bible doesn't even say that, you also have an issue following men when the bible you follow was written by men (Catholic men at that). I don't need the bible or Rome to tell me how stupid, backwards and hypocritical that is.


----------



## PsyOps

Chuckt said:


> No.  The Old Testament has the same God and the same Christ and they were looking forward to the cross while we are looking back at the cross.



Why would I expect you to get the point?


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> If I'm a reprobate for cyber butt kicking you, then surely you are for continually spreading lies about the Church Jesus founded.
> 
> I'll take my fruit over yours any day.



When you practice what you are doing then what you really are doing is starving yourself spiritually:

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. 

When you have pleasure on things on television, bad books or whatever you spend your time on and when you deliver an emoticon like a but kick then you are feeding the flesh instead of your spirit and you are neglecting prayer, God's righteousness or how you are to disciple yourself.  You are starving yourself spiritually and you are letting the world program you that this kind of behavior is okay as a Catholic so you don't look any different than the world.

The fruit of the spirit is gentleness and goodness which you haven't shown me.

Galatians 5:22   But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,  

Galatians 5:23   Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 

http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=5&t=KJV#22


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> The fruit of the spirit is gentleness and goodness which you haven't shown me.



So let me get this straight. The person who for months has been showing hatred and spreading lies, which is neither gentle or good, is now going to cry when he finally gets a little cyber  emoticon? Once again, you are a raging hypocrite. You might have better luck crying victim somewhere else.


----------



## b23hqb

onel0126 said:


> You can tell the difference between authentic Protestant Christians and those of the B23 and Chuck ilk. Ever notice they are so obsessed about doing the opposite of ANYTHING Catholic? It's insecurity and is indeed by design. B23's church doesn't even have a leader--show me that in scripture! And FYI, the Synod has been over. And the fact that you are rooting for some heretical change to come out of it speaks volumes.



onel, IMHO, you can't tell the difference between anything and anything as long as it is not pro-catholic. But that is not why I answered.

I would like to thank you for your response to my questions on catholic funerals. They answered my questions.

I would also like to thank you for the phrase "puppets of Rome". I had never heard that phrase place in that context of religion before, but I will keep it available.

I also have a question that goes back to the OP of this thread. Onel, what will you do if the rcc says to allow openly homosexual people (couples) into your congregation and fellowship?

Be honest, and don't let those "strings" sway your personal belief.


----------



## onel0126

b23hqb said:


> onel, IMHO, you can't tell the difference between anything and anything as long as it is not pro-catholic. But that is not why I answered.  I would like to thank you for your response to my questions on catholic funerals. They answered my questions.  I would also like to thank you for the phrase "puppets of Rome". I had never heard that phrase place in that context of religion before, but I will keep it available.



I have never uttered the phrase "puppets of rome."


----------



## b23hqb

onel0126 said:


> I have never uttered the phrase "puppets of rome."



Technically, minus one letter that makes it a plural, you are correct. Now fess up to what you said::


onel0126
onel0126 is online now
Bead mumbler
onel0126's Avatar

Member Since
    Feb 2008
Posts
    2,096	

    Quote Originally Posted by b23hqb View Post
    55 years ago, and obviously plenty of dem protestants voted for him as well. Were you even alive to experience the "bat chit crazy" that you allege happened? It didn't seem to bother my Protestant, conservative military parents. But it is nice to see some of the resident catholics finally chime in on this topic of allowing practicing homosexuality and other sin blatantly in a church. What's your stand on that, which is the OP of this thread.

Your response:

    I was not alive. Were you alive when the Bible was written? Then shut up. Now be honest, are you really going to spew forth that there was no fear in electing a Catholic in 1960 due to unfounded fears that he would *be a puppet of Rome?*


----------



## b23hqb

onel0126 said:


> I have never uttered the phrase "puppets of rome."



Now, with the "puppet of rome" out of the way, what will you, onel, do not if but when a practicing homosexual or homosexual couple come through the doors of your parrish/church and want to be included in all things catholic?


----------



## onel0126

b23hqb said:


> Now, with the "puppet of rome" out of the way, what will you, onel, do not if but when a practicing homosexual or homosexual couple come through the doors of your parrish/church and want to be included in all things catholic?


    I meant referring to bishops like the article used. It's not up to me. We have leaders that handle this. Unlike your joint where everyone apparently sits around leader less puritan-style until someone gets the itch to say something.


----------



## b23hqb

onel0126 said:


> I meant referring to bishops like the article used. It's not up to me. We have leaders that handle this. Unlike your joint where everyone apparently sits around leader less puritan-style until someone gets the itch to say something.




Bs. Answer for yourself, if you can. Don't lay it on rome or your bishops, or you are nothing but a puppet of rome.

Face reality. Do you have a conscience of your own, and capable of reading and discerning the Bible on your own? By your responses - no, you are not capable of an answer on your own. Only a pull on the strings from rome will prompt a response from you, no matter how you try and dance around it.


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> Bs. Answer for yourself, if you can. Don't lay it on rome or your bishops, or you are nothing but a puppet of rome.
> 
> Face reality. Do you have a conscience of your own, and capable of reading and discerning the Bible on your own? By your responses - no, you are not capable of an answer on your own. Only a pull on the strings from rome will prompt a response from you, no matter how you try and dance around it.



I don't know who you're trying to kid, but the majority of Catholics are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and they choose the Apostolic Church. Those who don't, leave it and become Protestants. Its all very simple really. Just because what we think doesn't jive with your opinions on scripture means nothing. In fact, hold tight for a few days because when I have time I will personally (and all by myself mind you) dismantle your beloved sola scriptura doctrine and show you exactly how biblical Catholics are.

You're just mad because onel refuses to be as haughty and judgmental as you. I have news for you, no one wants to be like you. Well, maybe chuckt, but that's ok because no one wants to be like him either.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> I don't know who you're trying to kid, but the majority of Catholics are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and they choose the Apostolic Church.



The majority of Catholics were born into the faith. They 'chose' nothing.

A little humor...

A nun at a Catholic school asked her students what they want to be when they grow up.
Little Suzy declares, "I want to be a prostitute." 
"What did you say?!" asks the nun, totally shocked. 
"I said I want to be a prostitute," Suzy repeats. 
"Oh, thank heavens," says the nun. "I thought you said 'a Protestant!'"


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> The majority of Catholics were born into the faith. They 'chose' nothing.



Oh please. If you will notice I said "most", and the same could be said for all children, including atheists. I can assure you that Catholics reach the age of reason and make their own choices as adults just like anyone else. I can't believe I even have to reiterate this.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> Oh please. If you will notice I said "most", and the same could be said for all children, including atheists. I can assure you that Catholics reach the age of reason and make their own choices as adults just like anyone else. I can't believe I even have to reiterate this.



"Age of Reason"...an ironic term in Catholicism, if Catholics could reason there wouldn't be any Catholics  

But I'm sure you get my point, it's not a choice but a 'fait accompli' for most Catholics. Indoctrination overpowers reason.


----------



## Amused_despair

ProximaCentauri said:


> "Age of Reason"...an ironic term in Catholicism, if Catholics could reason there wouldn't be any Catholics
> 
> But I'm sure you get my point, it's not a choice but a 'fait accompli' for most Catholics. Indoctrination overpowers reason.



So it is lack of reason for catholic children to adopt the faith of their parents but is it incredible insightfulness for Southern Baptist children to adopt the faith of their parents?


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Amused_despair said:


> So it is lack of reason for catholic children to adopt the faith of their parents...



No, I would say more like the subversion of reason through indoctrination.



Amused_despair said:


> ...but is it incredible insightfulness for Southern Baptist children to adopt the faith of their parents?



Of course not. Indoctrination into _any_ religion from a young age is the primary determinant of an individual's religious affiliation into adulthood - insightfulness does not enter into it. To apply insightfulness implies one critically examines their belief system. This almost never occurs when you are immersed in a particular religious belief system from birth. 

Religious indoctrination will trump reason when it comes to examining ones religious beliefs against those of other religions or sects, or against no belief at all. That is not to say that religious people are incapable of reason, but they put reason and critical examination aside when it comes to their faith.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> No, I would say more like the subversion of reason through indoctrination.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Indoctrination into _any_ religion from a young age is the primary determinant of an individual's religious affiliation into adulthood - insightfulness does not enter into it. To apply insightfulness implies one critically examines their belief system. This almost never occurs when you are immersed in a particular religious belief system from birth.
> 
> Religious indoctrination will trump reason when it comes to examining ones religious beliefs against those of other religions or sects, or against no belief at all. That is not to say that religious people are incapable of reason, but they put reason and critical examination aside when it comes to their faith.



IF this is true, then it's true across the board and agnostics or atheists are not immune to their own indoctrination. I'm thinking if you want to use this premise you can't rightly pick on religion alone.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> IF this is true, then it's true across the board and agnostics or atheists are not immune to their own indoctrination. I'm thinking if you want to use this premise you can't rightly pick on religion alone.



The definition of indoctrination is the acceptance of a set of beliefs or belief system *uncritically*.Your notion that indoctrination plays the same role in agnosticism or atheism as it does in theism would have more validity if agnosticism/atheism was a belief system analogous to a religious belief system. On the contrary, agnosticism/atheism is the lack of a belief system. 

“Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth — often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable.” 
― Hypatia


----------



## Chuckt

ProximaCentauri said:


> The definition of indoctrination is the acceptance of a set of beliefs or belief system *uncritically*.Your notion that indoctrination plays the same role in agnosticism or atheism as it does in theism would have more validity if agnosticism/atheism was a belief system analogous to a religious belief system. On the contrary, agnosticism/atheism is the lack of a belief system.
> 
> “Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth — often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable.”
> ― Hypatia



God was silently calling me.  I tried to leave the faith.  God kept calling me back.

I took a leap of faith and God met me.

When God said don't eat of the tree or you would die, your spirit died so it is harder for you to discern God being there.

I would like to work harder and use my knowledge to understand when God would be willing to accomplish miracles and to see God do greater things.  It is sort of like having a microscope.  You don't know what is there unless you are willing to look and the ignorant and unbelieving are unwilling to wait on God.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> The definition of indoctrination is the acceptance of a set of beliefs or belief system *uncritically*.Your notion that indoctrination plays the same role in agnosticism or atheism as it does in theism would have more validity if agnosticism/atheism was a belief system analogous to a religious belief system. On the contrary, agnosticism/atheism is the lack of a belief system.
> 
> “Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth — often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable.”
> ― Hypatia



It doesn't matter if it's a "belief system" or not. It's something taught to children therefore it's indoctrination.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Chuckt said:


> God was silently calling me.  I tried to leave the faith.  God kept calling me back.
> 
> I took a leap of faith and God met me.
> 
> When God said don't eat of the tree or you would die, your spirit died so it is harder for you to discern God being there.
> 
> I would like to work harder and use my knowledge to understand when God would be willing to accomplish miracles and to see God do greater things.  It is sort of like having a microscope.  You don't know what is there unless you are willing to look and the ignorant and unbelieving are unwilling to wait on God.



Chuckt, you are the proverbial street preacher and this forum is your street corner.  The Abrahamic religions are anti-knowledge as demonstrated in your 'tree of knowledge' story; better for controlling the willing ignorant.

Your 2 way conversations with god seem to happen with schizophrenics and religious zealots. I consider the latter a kind of self-induced 'religious schizophrenia'. If you were talking to god through a hair dryer you would most certainly be labeled 'crazy'. I don't see where the addition of a hair dryer makes any difference.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> It doesn't matter if it's a "belief system" or not. It's something taught to children therefore it's indoctrination.



Does Atheism need to be taught to children? Aren't all children born as Atheists? A blank slate that subsequently adopts the religion of their of their birthparents/birth region/culture. Adopting the doctrine of Islam in Islamic countries, Christianity in Christian dominated countries, Hinduism in India, and so-on. 

And if they are born to Atheist parents, what doctrine would they be indoctrinated into? There is no doctrine of Atheism. Would not 'no belief' be the default for children brought up in a non-believing family and society. Would this require 'indoctrination' into Atheism?

By the way, the vast majority of Atheists/Humanists were former Christians. Indoctrinated into Christianity, usually from childhood. But the indoctrination failed somehow or at least did not last for their lifetime. Education may have had an impact as the majority of Atheists are college educated; there's that knowledge thing again.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> Does Atheism need to be taught to children? Aren't all children born as Atheists? A blank slate that subsequently adopts the religion of their of their birthparents/birth region/culture. Adopting the doctrine of Islam in Islamic countries, Christianity in Christian dominated countries, Hinduism in India, and so-on.
> 
> And if they are born to Atheist parents, what doctrine would they be indoctrinated into? There is no doctrine of Atheism. Would not 'no belief' be the default for children brought up in a non-believing family and society. Would this require 'indoctrination' into Atheism?
> 
> By the way, the vast majority of Atheists/Humanists were former Christians. Indoctrinated into Christianity, usually from childhood. But the indoctrination failed somehow or at least did not last for their lifetime. Education may have had an impact as the majority of Atheists are college educated; there's that knowledge thing again.



Atheism is taught just like any other -ism. Do you have children? If so, I guarantee you that when they start to ponder the vastness of the universe and ponder on the notion whether there is a higher intelligence somewhere or someway or whether stuff just happened (as I think all humans do if left to themselves) that you are going to teach them or steer them according to your own standards and world view. Ergo, you will teach them atheism and you will have done so from the beginning of their life.

What you're telling me is that indoctrination can fail for some reason for those whom willingly choose atheism, but not for those whom willingly choose something other than atheism, which I know to be bull#### because I'm living proof it's not as are countless others. IF you truly believe that, then it sounds as if you've been indoctrinated and are believing a fantasy. The last stat I read was that 51% of scientists believed in God in one form or another. Surely you are not going to declare that 51% uneducated.

I am one of a growing number of people who find no dichotomy between science and religion. They are two angles searching for the same thing, truth. One searches for how and the other why. If I remember correctly, you and I have had this conversation before?


My mother is in the hospital again, so my time is extraordinarily limited right now. I'll try to catch up with this later if the thread hasn't gone off on other tangents or has died by then.


----------



## cheezgrits

I'll just leave this here...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html


----------



## Bird Dog

K





cheezgrits said:


> I'll just leave this here...
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html



So I guess Secular/Humanist kids don't believe in Santa Claus......


----------



## cheezgrits

Bird Dog said:


> K
> 
> So I guess Secular/Humanist kids don't believe in Santa Claus......



Could be. just throwing that in there for the discussion over indoctrination versus learning. I'm not on either side. I think a balance of science with a belief system and the mysteries of life makes a well rounded person. No one way has to be the right way. I am a contradiction to the norm. I was born in the South into the Baptist church and was dunked and all that. Then the church showed its hypocritical values and we converted to Episcopalian. I worshiped in the Catholic Church as well. I have eventually come to my own belief system based on all my life experiences and learning. Lucky me, I suppose.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> Atheism is taught just like any other -ism.



There is no ideology of atheism, no doctrine of atheism, so nothing to teach. Yes Atheists teach kids to be open minded, to use reason and critical thinking, to be skeptical of claims for which there is no proof. But these concepts, one would hope, would be taught to all kids. The sad truth is this is not the case in many religious homes, especially fundamentalist religious homes where the emphasis is on myth and dogma. 



Radiant1 said:


> What you're telling me is that indoctrination can fail for some reason for those whom willingly choose atheism, but not for those whom willingly choose something other than atheism, which I know to be bull#### because I'm living proof it's not as are countless others. IF you truly believe that, then it sounds as if you've been indoctrinated and are believing a fantasy. The last stat I read was that 51% of scientists believed in God in one form or another. Surely you are not going to declare that 51% uneducated.



A straw man argument on your part and you missed the point. The vast majority of Atheists were not influenced by an atheist upbringing, as is the case with theism and its tendency to indoctrinate children from a young age in religious dogma. These same Atheists are college educated at a significantly higher  rate than the general population, including scientists - which I didn't bring into the argument, you did - but in doing so, you only add more confirmation that atheists are among the more highly educated among us. This does not imply that all highly educated scientists must therefore be atheist.



Radiant1 said:


> I am one of a growing number of people who find no dichotomy between science and religion. They are two angles searching for the same thing, truth. One searches for how and the other why. If I remember correctly, you and I have had this conversation before?



Seems to ring a bell, and would be happy to discuss in its own thread. But religion is not "searching for the truth", it has already defined it according to its writings and dogma. The RCC has moderated its views, for example the RCC's acceptance of evolution, and that's all well and good but as long as it sticks stubbornly to archaic beliefs, such as it's stance on homosexuality, opposition to birth control, opposition to stem cell research, etc,, there can be no true alignment.

Hope your mom does well. That's infinitely more important than this.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

cheezgrits said:


> Could be. just throwing that in there for the discussion over indoctrination versus learning. I'm not on either side. I think a balance of science with a belief system and the mysteries of life makes a well rounded person. No one way has to be the right way. I am a contradiction to the norm. I was born in the South into the Baptist church and was dunked and all that. Then the church showed its hypocritical values and we converted to Episcopalian. I worshiped in the Catholic Church as well. *I have eventually come to my own belief system based on all my life experiences and learning. Lucky me, I suppose*.


----------



## Gilligan

ProximaCentauri said:


>



Or you could join us Druids. Our motto "established 2500 years before anyone even thunk of Christianity, and we make killer mead"


----------



## Chuckt

ProximaCentauri said:


> There is no ideology of atheism, no doctrine of atheism, so nothing to teach. Yes Atheists teach kids to be open minded, to use reason and critical thinking, to be skeptical of claims for which there is no proof. But these concepts, one would hope, would be taught to all kids. The sad truth is this is not the case in many religious homes, especially fundamentalist religious homes where the emphasis is on myth and dogma.



Atheism is an assumption because if you go backwards in time and poll today, theism is the default belief and not atheism.  Atheists are a minority.


----------



## CleanTheSlateInSMC

Chuckt said:


> Atheism is an assumption because if you go backwards in time and poll today, theism is the default belief and not atheism.  Atheists are a minority.



An assumption of what?


----------



## Chuckt

CleanTheSlateInSMC said:


> An assumption of what?



An assumption that God doesn't exist.  Agnosticism would be the default before atheism.


----------



## cheezgrits

Chuckt said:


> An assumption that God doesn't exist.  Agnosticism would be the default before atheism.



Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."
An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. 

There really cannot be any "default" belief, humans are not machines, computers or software. If you think that, then you are supporting design, not creation.


----------



## Amused_despair

cheezgrits said:


> Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."
> An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
> 
> There really cannot be any "default" belief, humans are not machines, computers or software. If you think that, then you are supporting design, not creation.



Well, after all,  his God did create Man by committee.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> There is no ideology of atheism, no doctrine of atheism, so nothing to teach. Yes Atheists teach kids to be open minded, to use reason and critical thinking, to be skeptical of claims for which there is no proof. But these concepts, one would hope, would be taught to all kids. The sad truth is this is not the case in many religious homes, especially fundamentalist religious homes where the emphasis is on myth and dogma.



Whether atheism is an ideology or not is not relevant. You say there's nothing to teach and then go right into saying that "Atheists teach...". What do you say to those who are open minded, do use reason and critical thinking, and are skeptical (skeptical actually meaning skeptical, not automatic rejection) who choose to be theists in one way, shape, form or another? Are you truly going to tell me that these people are stupid or are in such a minority as to not matter? Is it the scientific way to dismiss or ignore that anomalous minority?



ProximaCentauri said:


> A straw man argument on your part and you missed the point. The vast majority of Atheists were not influenced by an atheist upbringing, as is the case with theism and its tendency to indoctrinate children from a young age in religious dogma. These same Atheists are college educated at a significantly higher  rate than the general population, including scientists - which I didn't bring into the argument, you did - but in doing so, you only add more confirmation that atheists are among the more highly educated among us. This does not imply that all highly educated scientists must therefore be atheist.



Nor does it imply that all theists are uneducated, which was my point because that's what you seem to be implying. 

Mirriam Webster:
Full Definition of INDOCTRINATE
transitive verb

1:  to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments :  teach 

2:  to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle 

I don't know where you get your definition of the term from, but it looks to me as if atheism very well can be indoctrinated, perhaps especially in higher education. Face it, it's not just a matter of teaching someone critical thinking. Even those highly educated atheistic professors can't keep from putting a bit of subjectivity or partisanship into their work or lessons any more than parents or elementary school teachers. 

I came across this article that I thought was interesting. I'd like your opinion on it. After the first few paragraphs I actually had to make sure this wasn't a spoof site.  

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...s_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982




ProximaCentauri said:


> Seems to ring a bell, and would be happy to discuss in its own thread. But religion is not "searching for the truth", it has already defined it according to its writings and dogma. The RCC has moderated its views, for example the RCC's acceptance of evolution, and that's all well and good but as long as it sticks stubbornly to archaic beliefs, such as it's stance on homosexuality, opposition to birth control, opposition to stem cell research, etc,, there can be no true alignment.



Although I was talking in generalities, maybe so, for now. Both scientific knowledge of the universe and our spiritual understanding of it changes as time goes on.



ProximaCentauri said:


> Hope your mom does well. That's infinitely more important than this.



Thanks.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> Whether atheism is an ideology or not is not relevant. You say there's nothing to teach and then go right into saying that "Atheists teach...". What do you say to those who are open minded, do use reason and critical thinking, and are skeptical (skeptical actually meaning skeptical, not automatic rejection) who choose to be theists in one way, shape, form or another? Are you truly going to tell me that these people are stupid or are in such a minority as to not matter? Is it the scientific way to dismiss or ignore that anomalous minority?



Theists can be highly intelligent, skeptical, and rational in every area of their lives except when it comes to their religion.



Radiant1 said:


> Nor does it imply that all theists are uneducated, which was my point because that's what you seem to be implying.



No, that was not my intent. You're reading intent between the lines that's not there. Atheists/Agnostics as a demographic is associated with higher education and scientists/academics. That fact in no way implies that theists are uneducated.



Radiant1 said:


> I don't know where you get your definition of the term from, but it looks to me as if atheism very well can be indoctrinated, perhaps especially in higher education. Face it, it's not just a matter of teaching someone critical thinking. Even those highly educated atheistic professors can't keep from putting a bit of subjectivity or partisanship into their work or lessons any more than parents or elementary school teachers.



"Indoctrination" is most often used in conjunction with religions/cults. But I will grant that Atheists will often advocate for skepticism with respect to religion and religious beliefs, in a parental or school setting.



Radiant1 said:


> I came across this article that I thought was interesting. I'd like your opinion on it. After the first few paragraphs I actually had to make sure this wasn't a spoof site.
> http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...s_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982



It's not a 'spoof' site but I would be skeptical of anything you read on this site. This is written by a journalist for science20 who references an article in Nature magazine written by a Cognitive Anthropologist. However, this journalist completely perverted the conclusions of the Nature article, no doubt to spin it in a direction he wanted. 

The Nature article describes the evolution of cognitive mechanisms that began to develop with our hominid ancestors for basic survival and social survival skills, but now result in modern day humans having a pre-disposition to mythical/religious belief. By the way, cognitive neuroscience has been looking at this for the past decade, so this is by no means not a new revelation. 








Although I was talking in generalities, maybe so, for now. Both scientific knowledge of the universe and our spiritual understanding of it changes as time goes on.



Thanks.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> Theists can be highly intelligent, skeptical, and rational in every area of their lives except when it comes to their religion.



Everything except?  Again, is it the scientific way to dismiss or ignore an anomaly? Are not theories abandoned when anomalies occur?



ProximaCentauri said:


> The Nature article describes the evolution of cognitive mechanisms that began to develop with our hominid ancestors for basic survival and social survival skills, but now result in modern day humans having a pre-disposition to mythical/religious belief. By the way, cognitive neuroscience has been looking at this for the past decade, so this is by no means not a new revelation.



It was new to me, one of those "do what??" kind of reactions. I'll dig up the Nature article. I showed my daughter the article last night, but haven't seen her yet to know her response. She plans on going into cognitive neuroscience/neuropsychology and is aiming for Johns Hopkins. She was raised with Christian principles, so it will be interesting to see if she reconciles the two along the way. In either case, we can be assured she rationally chose for herself. :ahem:


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> Everything except?  Again, is it the scientific way to dismiss or ignore an anomaly? Are not theories abandoned when anomalies occur?



No, but presence of an anomaly will warrant re-examination of the data that supports the theory. My statement is not a theory in the scientific sense, it’s just an assertion backed only by observation and personal experience, so from a scientific standpoint it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. As an example of my 'assertion' though, consider Ben Carson - you and I seem to have the same opinion on this - a seemingly very intelligent and rational human being, except when it comes to his ridiculous religious beliefs that have called into question his overall mental stability. 

Another political example that comes to mind is Mitt Romney. He once performed a Mormon ritual (with his wife) over his atheist scientist father-in-law’s grave, posthumously baptizing him into the Mormon faith, and still nearly became our president. You and I probably consider many Mormon beliefs irrational, no? But I admit that Romney seemed the less fanatical of the two, even though it's unknown what he would have done had he won the white house. 

I'm not implying that _all_ Christians are bat-#### crazy. Most Catholics I know don’t hold many of the dogmatic beliefs of Catholicism so they essentially are what I would term 'cultural' Catholics. They view transubstantiation as myth and don’t hold many of the RCC’s stances on birth control, abortion, etc. You appear to be a more devout traditionalist, no?  So I’m curious to know just how intelligent people are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with reason - can you shed any light on that? My assertion is they somehow rationalize away any conflicts, but in doing so are not intellectually honest with themselves; or is it that after a myth that you know to be a myth, is rationalized so many times, it becomes truth within one's psyche? 



Radiant1 said:


> It was new to me, one of those "do what??" kind of reactions. I'll dig up the Nature article. I showed my daughter the article last night, but haven't seen her yet to know her response. She plans on going into cognitive neuroscience/neuropsychology and is aiming for Johns Hopkins. She was raised with Christian principles, so it will be interesting to see if she reconciles the two along the way. In either case, we can be assured she rationally chose for herself. :ahem:



Yeah, neuroscience is very interesting stuff, and btw, congrats on your daughter’s ambitions, she must have a very good mom. It will be interesting how she reconciles her faith with science. And if she becomes a scientist, you could very well lose her to the dark side.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> My statement is not a theory in the scientific sense, it’s just an assertion backed only by observation and personal experience, so from a scientific standpoint it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.



That's all I needed to hear, enough said.



ProximaCentauri said:


> You appear to be a more devout traditionalist, no?



No. 



ProximaCentauri said:


> So I’m curious to know just how intelligent people are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with reason - can you shed any light on that? My assertion is they somehow rationalize away any conflicts, but in doing so are not intellectually honest with themselves; or is it that after a myth that you know to be a myth, is rationalized so many times, it becomes truth within one's psyche?



Some things are reconciled immediately, for example when in school and taught evolution big bang, etc it was like a revelation to me. The science enlightened me to what the story means in once sense, which in turn led me to understand that myths are not without a grain of truth and are a way of trying to explain something that at the time is inexplicable or ineffable. Why else would a myth be started if not for a purpose? I mean, no rational thinking person is going to believe the story literally, right? Other things are reconciled as time goes on and others haven't yet, as there are still many conflicts, but I think they probably will given time, maybe a lot of time or maybe not. I think perhaps you and I have a different understanding of what "myth" is.

I think that science as it continues to grow will explain a good many of the metaphysical aspects that religion teaches. Science will confirm what religion has known all along. In other words, religious doctrine is absolute truth; however, our understanding of how we get to that truth can change and I think science will have a large impact on that. I think the entirety of human endeavor is a search for truth, whether that be through spirituality or science, personal or public, it's the same attempt albeit from different angles. I also think that human endeavor will never cease and that's the reason why I believe in God. God will always be the something more, or the something out there, or the something sensed but not fully known, or whatever you want to call it. As long as humans have the desire to know something outside of themselves there is God.



ProximaCentauri said:


> Yeah, neuroscience is very interesting stuff, and btw, congrats on your daughter’s ambitions, she must have a very good mom. It will be interesting how she reconciles her faith with science. And if she becomes a scientist, you could very well lose her to the dark side.



Thanks. I think she'd be agnostic at worse, but I don't particularly believe that atheists earn an automatic stay in hell so as long as she follows her own path... :shrug:


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> Some things are reconciled immediately, for example when in school and taught evolution big bang, etc it was like a revelation to me.



Lucky for you the RCC has put its stamp of approval on both evolution and the big bang. I wonder what their true motivation is for this? After all it only took the RCC 350 years to pardon Galileo (1992) 
Just realize though, that Darwinian Evolution is an autonomous process; i.e., a creator is unnecessary. The big bang, to the chagrin of astrophysicists, gives theists a theory that seems to infer a creator.



Radiant1 said:


> The science enlightened me to what the story means in once sense, which in turn led me to understand that myths are not without a grain of truth and are a way of trying to explain something that at the time is inexplicable or ineffable. *Why else would a myth be started if not for a purpose?* I mean, no rational thinking person is going to believe the story literally, right? Other things are reconciled as time goes on and others haven't yet, as there are still many conflicts, but I think they probably will given time, maybe a lot of time or maybe not. I think perhaps you and I have a different understanding of what "myth" is.



Why do myths (and religious beliefs) evolve and take hold? As touched on before, the evolution of certain neural cognitive mechanisms pre-dispose the brain for belief in myth and religion. We can get in to the details of this maybe at another time. It's a lengthy discussion.



Radiant1 said:


> I think that science as it continues to grow will explain a good many of the metaphysical aspects that religion teaches. Science will confirm what religion has known all along. *In other words, religious doctrine is absolute truth*; however, our understanding of how we get to that truth can change and I think science will have a large impact on that. I think the entirety of human endeavor is a search for truth, whether that be through spirituality or science, personal or public, it's the same attempt albeit from different angles. I also think that human endeavor will never cease and that's the reason why I believe in God. God will always be the something more, or the something out there, or the something sensed but not fully known, or whatever you want to call it. As long as humans have the desire to know something outside of themselves there is God.



Quite a statement. There is so much here I disagree with that I really don't know where to start. The logic you use is certainly alien to me. Thanks for thinking that science plays a role...unfathomably though in confirming iron age wisdom as "truth". Have you ever heard of Deepak Chopra? This sounds like something he would write. And this seems to match with a popular contemporary religious meme held by many 21st century Christians. Melding science with religion can never happen, in my estimation. Sorry I just don't get it, can't relate to it at all. It would require a long discussion for me to truly understand what you're reasoning is. So maybe someday we could get into it in more depth.

I'll leave you with this quote which at least gives some indication of my reasoning, but doesn't begin to encompass my thinking in-total...

“In the face of God's obvious inadequacies, the pious have generally held that one cannot apply earthly norms to the Creator of the universe. This argument loses its force the moment we notice that the Creator who purports to be beyond human judgment is consistently ruled by human passions— jealousy, wrath, suspicion, and the lust to dominate. A close study of our holy books reveals that the God of Abraham is a ridiculous fellow—capricious, petulant, and cruel—and one with whom a covenant is little guarantee of health or happiness. If these are the characteristics of God, then the worst among us have been created far more in his image than we ever could have hoped.” 

"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, The Gods


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> Lucky for you the RCC has put its stamp of approval on both evolution and the big bang. I wonder what their true motivation is for this? After all it only took the RCC 350 years to pardon Galileo (1992)
> Just realize though, that Darwinian Evolution is an autonomous process; i.e., a creator is unnecessary. The big bang, to the chagrin of astrophysicists, gives theists a theory that seems to infer a creator.



Lucky for me?  Why do you question the motivation? Do you think that stamp of approval has some big conspiracy behind it other than simple truth? The whole point of my responding to you was to show you that Catholics do indeed think for themselves in which you claimed they didn't due to indoctrination and then later said your opinion wasn't worth the paper it would be written on. At t

Why did the Church take so long to pardon Galileo? Who knows, I suppose JPII decided it was time and he threw Galileo in with the apology to Jews, women, and all the rest. It was like one big apology for past cultures that those of us today had nothing to do with. Probably done just to get people to shut up because acquiescing to the whiney is part of the current culture we live in, I don't know. 

You may call Darwinian evolution an autonomous process but something kick-started that process. What's interesting to me is that religion says God just is, He was there in the beginning with no creator because He is the creator. Atheists scoff at that; however, they don't scoff at the same premise when referring to the Big Bang. If you want to call God "Big Bang" I don't give two craps. Why do atheists get their panties in a wad if theists call the Big Bang "God"? I mean, what is Big Bang anyway but a point where the law of physics stops? And, I know this may be hard for you to swallow, but *maybe it really does* infer a creator.



ProximaCentauri said:


> Why do myths (and religious beliefs) evolve and take hold? As touched on before, the evolution of certain neural cognitive mechanisms pre-dispose the brain for belief in myth and religion. We can get in to the details of this maybe at another time. It's a lengthy discussion.



Because they're supposed to, or just to make you cringe, because God made us that way!  Much like our natural inclination for reproduction, which is a real thing that can't be denied, so too is mankind's inherent inclination for God. It's not going away, so get used to it.

(By the way, on principle I didn't want to pay $4 to rent the Nature article for two days, so I can't really say much more about it from here. Four bucks to read one short article, seriously?)



ProximaCentauri said:


> Quite a statement. There is so much here I disagree with that I really don't know where to start. The logic you use is certainly alien to me. Thanks for thinking that science plays a role...unfathomably though in confirming iron age wisdom as "truth". Have you ever heard of Deepak Chopra? This sounds like something he would write. And this seems to match with a popular contemporary religious meme held by many 21st century Christians. Melding science with religion can never happen, in my estimation. Sorry I just don't get it, can't relate to it at all.



Unfathomably!  Although I realize that humans get smarter with successive decades, that doesn't particularly mean that Iron Age peoples were stupid. What you called wisdom actually really is wisdom.



ProximaCentauri said:


> It would require a long discussion for me to truly understand what you're reasoning is. So maybe someday we could get into it in more depth.



Maybe, but probably not. I don't care if you don't agree and my life doesn't hinge on making you understand.



ProximaCentauri said:


> I'll leave you with this quote which at least gives some indication of my reasoning, but doesn't begin to encompass my thinking in-total...
> 
> “In the face of God's obvious inadequacies, the pious have generally held that one cannot apply earthly norms to the Creator of the universe. This argument loses its force the moment we notice that the Creator who purports to be beyond human judgment is consistently ruled by human passions— jealousy, wrath, suspicion, and the lust to dominate. A close study of our holy books reveals that the God of Abraham is a ridiculous fellow—capricious, petulant, and cruel—and one with whom a covenant is little guarantee of health or happiness. If these are the characteristics of God, then the worst among us have been created far more in his image than we ever could have hoped.”
> 
> "The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith."
> -- Robert Green Ingersoll, The Gods



Apparently, Mr. Ingersoll didn't understand the progressive revelation of God as found throughout the OT and that not all Christians believe that non-believers automatically earn a stay in hell. As far as I'm concerned, The Great Agnostic's reasoning in which you espouse is based on a straw man.


----------



## PsyOps

ProximaCentauri said:


> Lucky for you the RCC has put its stamp of approval on both evolution and the big bang.



In my estimation, most Christians do not discount evolution or the big bang.  They just believe that those events are by design and not the result of random chemical events.  And Christianity isn't used to discount these things, unlike what people like you try to do... use science to discount God.

Here's the thing... Most Christians I know will say that the existence of God and this creation doesn't make a lot of sense when trying to apply any sort of logic to it.  Without God, the existence of our universe doesn't make sense either.  There really is just no explaining the 'why' of it.  The one thing that God does (outside of faith and hope) is puts order in it.  Science relies strictly on chaos and randomness; which puts even less sense into something that already makes no sense.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> Lucky for me?  Why do you question the motivation? Do you think that stamp of approval has some big conspiracy behind it other than *simple truth*?



The same 'simple truth' the RCC uses to claim that a cracker turns into the body of jesus? Are you really so naïve to think that the RCC is the final arbiter of 'truth'? Give some objective thought, unfettered by your religious thinking, as to why the RCC throughout its history has adopted scientific knowledge - as it sees fit. You may find it an enlightening experience. 



Radiant1 said:


> The whole point of my responding to you was to show you that Catholics do indeed think for themselves in which you claimed they didn't due to indoctrination...



Nothing of the sort was "claimed". I see you haven't changed much rad1  



Radiant1 said:


> ...then later said your opinion wasn't worth the paper it would be written on.



Really rad1? The context was with respect to scientific theory. And by the way, you conflated scientific theory with an opinion post I made. My reply at the time did not call you out on your ignorance regarding the difference between assertions/opinions based on anecdotal evidence and scientific theory. So it was either your ignorance, or just a blatant attempt to conflate the two to support your straw-man arguments - please, your smarter than that, aren't you?



Radiant1 said:


> You may call Darwinian evolution an autonomous process but something kick-started that process. What's interesting to me is that religion says God just is, He was there in the beginning with no creator because He is the creator. Atheists scoff at that; however, they don't scoff at the same premise when referring to the Big Bang. If you want to call God "Big Bang" I don't give two craps. Why do atheists get their panties in a wad if theists call the Big Bang "God"? I mean, what is Big Bang anyway but a point where the law of physics stops? And, I know this may be hard for you to swallow, *but *maybe it really does* infer a creator.*



Right, and this creator would be your god I suppose. So the creator of the known universe just happens to condone slavery, murder, and genocide. And he watches your every move, especially taking a keen interest in your sexual behavior, and will torture you for all eternity at his discretion. But, other than that, I hear he's a really nice guy. 



Radiant1 said:


> Because they're supposed to, or just to make you cringe, because God made us that way!



Of course, why didn't I know that...now it all makes sense. 



Radiant1 said:


> Much like our natural inclination for reproduction, which is a real thing that can't be denied, so too is mankind's inherent inclination for God. It's not going away, so get used to it.



Don't worry, my inclination for reproduction is still strong (how's yours?), but not my inclination for god. Given a choice, I'm happy to retain the former and jettison the latter!  By the way, inclination for god is 'going away', that is to say currently declining in our country...guess you haven't been keeping up with the latest polls?


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> The same 'simple truth' the RCC uses to claim that a cracker turns into the body of jesus? Are you really so naïve to think that the RCC is the final arbiter of 'truth'? Give some objective thought, unfettered by your religious thinking, as to why the RCC throughout its history has adopted scientific knowledge - as it sees fit. You may find it an enlightening experience.



Yes, and I'm enlightened by both the metaphysical and the physical. Truth is what it's all about and since the Church comes at the truth from a different angle than science of course it's going to pick and choose which scientific theory of the day is to be believed or not. Science does the same but in reverse. Big deal.



ProximaCentauri said:


> Nothing of the sort was "claimed". I see you haven't changed much rad1



Would you prefer I said that you made "an assertion"? It doesn't make much difference, pick your word. :shrug:



ProximaCentauri said:


> Really rad1? The context was with respect to scientific theory. And by the way, you conflated scientific theory with an opinion post I made. My reply at the time did not call you out on your ignorance regarding the difference between assertions/opinions based on anecdotal evidence and scientific theory. So it was either your ignorance, or just a blatant attempt to conflate the two to support your straw-man arguments - please, your smarter than that, aren't you?



Your accusation of a straw man is a straw man. Good Lord, this is getting tedious. I was simply telling you I was responding to your "assertion" about Catholics, not about evolution or anything else. And, I'm smart enough to know that you should be smart enough to know that when it comes to indoctrination and Catholics you should just say, "You were right R1, and I was wrong." 



ProximaCentauri said:


> Right, and this creator would be your god I suppose. So the creator of the known universe just happens to condone slavery, murder, and genocide. And he watches your every move, especially taking a keen interest in your sexual behavior, and will torture you for all eternity at his discretion. But, other than that, I hear he's a really nice guy.



Well duh, the Creator is everybody's Creator. We learn different things about the Creator at different times, just like scientists learn different things about the physical world at different times. People believe different things about the Creator just like scientists believe different things about global warming.



ProximaCentauri said:


> Of course, why didn't I know that...now it all makes sense.



It's about time you came around.  



ProximaCentauri said:


> Don't worry, my inclination for reproduction is still strong (how's yours?), but not my inclination for god. Given a choice, I'm happy to retain the former and jettison the latter!  By the way, inclination for god is 'going away', that is to say currently declining in our country...guess you haven't been keeping up with the latest polls?



My sex drive is fully intact and I've done my duty on the reproduction part, thank you. I never once felt I had to choose one over the other. You create a dichotomy where none exists.

More like the inclination for religion is going away, not the inclination for God per se. Whether it be by intuitive knowledge or by evolutionary grooming, it's not going away so get used to it.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> Yes, and I'm enlightened by both the metaphysical and the physical. Truth is what it's all about and since the Church comes at the truth from a different angle than science of course it's going to pick and choose which scientific theory of the day is to be believed or not. Science does the same but in reverse. Big deal.



How nice for you that the Vatican chooses what science you will adopt and believe in.   But apparently you don’t find it ironic that the RCC burned at the stake those who espoused science for over 500 years. And would still be doing this had the reformation and awakening not taken place enabling science to come to fore. 



Radiant1 said:


> ...you should just say, "You were right R1, and I was wrong."



Get used to disappointment. 



Radiant1 said:


> Well duh, the Creator is everybody's Creator.



Well duh, the "Creator" may not exist. But if he/she/it does exist, it might not be the god you just happen to believe in. I wonder, do you ever let yourself entertain these thoughts? 



Radiant1 said:


> We learn different things about the Creator at different times, just like scientists learn different things about the physical world at different times. People believe different things about the Creator just like scientists believe different things about global warming.



A poor analogy. Don't draw parallels between metaphysical *beliefs* and scientifically based theory. There is no evidence for a creator. A 'creator' is merely a 'belief'. On the other hand, there is substantial empirical evidence for global warming, scientifically based theory.



Radiant1 said:


> More like the inclination for religion is going away, not the inclination for God per se. Whether it be by intuitive knowledge or by evolutionary grooming, it's not going away so get used to it.



Sorry, but I suppose you’ll just have to excuse me for continuing to expose this nonsense that persists into the 21st century. The nonsensical belief in a god that condones homophobia, bigotry, misogyny, and all manner of hatred for those who worship another god or no god at all. And a god belief that allows one to kill others happily in the name of their god.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> How nice for you that the Vatican chooses what science you will adopt and believe in.   But apparently you don’t find it ironic that the RCC burned at the stake those who espoused science for over 500 years. And would still be doing this had the reformation and awakening not taken place enabling science to come to fore.



No, the Magisterium decides what science holds true with revelation, but that doesn't discount the rest of scientific discovery. Remember, a lot of persons such as myself don't see a dichotomy between the two. Everyone follows their conscience and either agrees or not, nobody is forced into believing anything. It's really quite simple. You may be college educated and consider yourself quite smart, but you really are rather ignorant about what you protest. 



ProximaCentauri said:


> Get used to disappointment.



You already conceded on the indoctrination issue. Is it really so hard to say, "You were right R1"? It's ok if your pride won't let you, we both know I was right. 



ProximaCentauri said:


> Well duh, the "Creator" may not exist. But if he/she/it does exist, it might not be the god you just happen to believe in. I wonder, do you ever let yourself entertain these thoughts?



God is God, Proxima, so there is no "not the god you believe in" at stake. 



ProximaCentauri said:


> A poor analogy. Don't draw parallels between metaphysical *beliefs* and scientifically based theory. There is no evidence for a creator. A 'creator' is merely a 'belief'. On the other hand, there is substantial empirical evidence for global warming, scientifically based theory.



I'll draw that parallel all I want, thank you. What's your theory worth if it's debunked later (which they often are), and what does that leave you with but a "belief"? As for global warming specifically, scientists disagree about it, apparently the empirical evidence is contradictory. Oh, and what's the deal with dark energy? It can't be seen and is only known by inference but yet science says it exists anyway and calls it a mystery. That sounds kind of like what we say about God jet and it sounds like a "belief" to me. You can call it whatever you want, it's mere semantics as far as I'm concerned. Your "empirical" foundation isn't as strong as you think.



ProximaCentauri said:


> Sorry, but I suppose you’ll just have to excuse me for continuing to expose this nonsense that persists into the 21st century. The nonsensical belief in a god that condones homophobia, bigotry, misogyny, and all manner of hatred for those who worship another god or no god at all. And a god belief that allows one to kill others happily in the name of their god.



I don't have to do anything. I might excuse you for being trapped in a mindset that is so restrictive as to withhold you from the fullness of what life on this earth can offer, or not.

I kind of feel like this has devolved into a less than edifying discussion and I made the points I wished to, so I'll leave it. Feel free to have the last word.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> I don't have to do anything. I might excuse you for being trapped in a mindset that is so restrictive as to withhold you from the fullness of what life on this earth can offer, or not.
> 
> I kind of feel like this has devolved into a less than edifying discussion and I made the points I wished to, so I'll leave it. Feel free to have the last word.



One of us gets up every morning open to what the universe may reveal about itself while the other takes their cues from unchanging religious bronze age / early iron age writings. This should give you a hint as to which one of us is stuck in a mindset.  

And btw, I have lived and continue to live a very rich and full life, spiritually, ethically, and compassionately. And contrary to your pious and flawed viewpoint, belief in an invisible deity and its attendant dogma is not only unnecessary to living a good life, but often detrimental to the individual and injurious to humanity as a whole.

Imagine a world in which children were not taught the exclusive and divisive dogmas of the various religions and religious sects of the world. Now imagine instead that children were taught only to use reason and fearless inquiry to learn about their world and the universe. Science transcends religious tribalism, racism, and even nationalism. Muslim mathematics, Christian chemistry, Italian quantum mechanics, American neuroscience? These things do not exist. 

Science is the way humans advance the collective knowledge of humanity. And quite possibly, the only thing that unites humanity in a singular purpose.


----------

